Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Oral Answers to Questions — ENVIRONMENT

City Grant, Birmingham

Mr. Bevan: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what has been the total amount of city grant money awarded to programmes in Birmingham in the current financial year.

The Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities (Mr. David Hunt): Five city grants totalling almost £10 million have been awarded to programmes in Birmingham, including one of £3·2 million to support a major commercial and leisure development known as the Arcadian centre, which I have approved today.

Mr. Bevan: Can my hon. Friend confirm that the grant for the Waterlinks development in Birmingham is worth more than £6 million and is the second biggest city grant approved so far? Is that not convincing evidence of the Government's commitment to Birmingham's needs? Can thought now be given to a grant-aided scheme for the restoration of the Grand Union canal in Yardley, Birmingham and the areas around it?

Mr. Hunt: I congratulate my hon. Friend and other hon. Friends on having so skilfully and effectively lobbied on Birmingham's behalf, in particular on city grant programmes. The answers to his questions are yes, and yes. The major Waterlinks development is the second biggest scheme approved so far and is equivalent in value to 10 per cent. of the annual approvals programme. I congratulate Birmingham on the exciting and imaginative schemes that it has submitted and I look forward to examining further schemes in due course.

Mr. O'Brien: How much of the city grant, to Birmingham in particular and throughout the country in general, goes to housing for rent? According to the terms of reference, houses for rent should be provided by those who receive city grants. When will the same amount be spent on providing houses for rent as is being spent on commercial undertakings in Birmingham? Does he agree that assistance should be given to provide houses for rent throughout the country.

Mr. Hunt: The purpose of our inner city policies is to provide inner city people with job opportunities, to match their skills to the jobs available, to provide retraining, better homes, better community facilities and a better environment in which to live and work. We have increased

the amount spent on city grants from £29 million in 1987–88 to £67 million in 1988–89 and we intend to maintain that rate of552
increase in future years.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: Does my hon. Friend accept that we are mindful of the fact that the Government have been generous towards Birmingham? They understand that Birmingham needs a lot of money for the changes that need to take place. Will he encourage his ministerial colleagues to ensure that the spine road to the Birmingham heartlands, which will set it on the road to growth, goes ahead so that Birmingham can be given a real chance to provide something of great worth to its people?

Mr. Hunt: I completely agree with my hon. Friend. Four large projects in Birmingham are under appraisal, including one in the heartlands area. My Department and I look forward to working with heartlands. We shall continue to support worthwhile city grant schemes. However, because of the complexity of the problems in heartlands, schemes may take longer than usual to appraise. Nevertheless, I shall do my best to speed up their consideration. I completely agree with my hon. Friend that important infrastructure improvements are vital to inner city regeneration.

European Community Ministers

Ms. Quin: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he next plans to meet his EEC counterparts; and what matters will be discussed.

The Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Chris Patten): I met my European Community counterparts as recently as Tuesday 28 November at the Environment Council in Brussels, following which on 30 November I gave a report of the meeting to the House in answer to a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Mr. Bright).
I intend meeting my European Community counterparts again at the next Environment Council on 22 March. The Republic of Ireland takes over the presidency of the European Community on 1 January 1990, and it will be for the presidency to determine the Council agenda.

Ms. Quin: Has the Secretary of State discussed with his European counterparts the speeding up of Britain's full compliance with EC water quality directives? Does he agree that instead of the taxpayer having to fork out more than £3 billion for privatisation, the money would have been better spent complying with those directives earlier? If we are supposed to enter the single European market in 1992, why do we have to wait until 1995 at the earliest for better quality standards?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that the hon. Lady will be delighted to know that we have the most comprehensive, fully funded and obviously committed programme of investment in raising our water quality standards so that they will be in full compliance with EC directives and, perhaps even more to the point, so that we can meet all our standards, some of which are higher than those set by the European Commission. In the other parts of the question, he hon. Lady seemed to be muddling together a number of facts, but I am sure that she will be as delighted as the rest of the House at the extremely successful flotation of the water industry and at the large number of new shareholders in the water industry.

Mr. Hunter: In dealings with his European counterparts, will my right hon. Friend ensure that there is no wasteful overlap between the activities of the European environmental statistics office, the European environmental CORINE programme, the European environmental agency and the European environmental monitoring and information system? It all sounds rather excessive, as though it involved creating or adding to the bureaucrats' paradise.

Mr. Patten: We are all against other bureaucrats' paradises, although we may be in favour of our own. I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of avoiding overlap. I believe that the establishment of a European environment agency, for which we pressed so strongly at the last Council meeting, will help to establish a common basis for information and debate on European environmental issues. I believe that Britain would come out of such debate pretty well.

Mr. Malcolm Bruce: When the Secretary of State next meets his colleagues in Europe, will he ask them how France and Germany are managing to secure reductions in carbon dioxide emissions, while in the United Kingdom they increased by 2·6 per cent? In view of his comments outside the House, does he believe that more intelligent public transport policies and energy conservation measures have contributed to those reductions, and will he be recommending that we take similar action?

Mr. Patten: I am delighted to follow the hon. Gentleman's last point. Since the substantial increase in investment in public transport announced in the Autumn Statement, I believe that we are now looking forward to the largest investment in British Rail since the move from steam to diesel, and we should all welcome that. Carbon dioxide emissions will be a major issue on the international agenda in the next few years. It is extremely complicated, and I am surprised that the Opposition have found it so simple to resolve, but I am sure that the rest of us will continue to do what we can to stop global warming and prevent climate change.

Mr. Heddle: Does my right hon. Friend recall that despite vigorous opposition from the British Government, the EC imposed VAT on non-domestic construction work in the United Kingdom? If the matter comes before his EC counterparts now or in the immediate future, will he give them notice that in no circumstances do the British Government want VAT to be imposed on domestic construction work in the United Kingdom which would increase house price inflation?

Mr. Patten: I well understand my hon. Friend's concern and the argument that he has put so vigorously. Were the issue to come to the Environment Council, my first reaction would be to tell my distinguished colleagues that it should be discussed not by the Environment Council but by other Councils in the Community. I assure my hon. Friend that I would want the closest consultation with my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer about any such proposal.

Community Charge

Mr. Campbell-Savours: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what representations he has received in the last month on the community charge.

Mr. David Hunt: I have received about 150 representations from local authorities and others on transitional relief. I continue to receive many representations on the community charge.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Do not the Government accept by now that the poll tax is utterly and totally discredited in the minds of people throughout the country? Can he not see that the people who gain are those who live in large, expensive properties and those who lose are those who live in small, inexpensive properties? In so far as the poll tax is now discredited because it is grossly unjust, is it not time that the Government withdrew the legislation and set about re-evaluating the rating system once again?

Mr. Hunt: No, no and no. Things are on course for the successful introduction of the community charge on 1 April next year. As for the position of the hon. Gentleman and his party, what is discredited is the present rating system, which all major parties now agree should be abolished. We believe that we have a fair and simple alternative. The hon. Gentleman should not pontificate on these matters until he and his colleagues have decided whether they wish to pursue their plans for twin-tax torture for the British people or whether they have some other alternative to bring forward.

Mr. Fishburn: Can my hon. Friend tell the House at this stage what proportion of the British public have registered for the community charge?

Mr. Hunt: I am happy to tell my hon. Friend that I am able to publish today the community charge population figures for England. They show that the proportion of the Government's estimate of people liable to the charge who have been registered is 99–95 per cent. on average throughout the country.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Is the Minister aware of the strong feeling in Tameside about the way in which the poll tax formulae have been applied? He will be aware of the representations that were made by my right hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), my hon. Friend the Member for Stalybridge and Hyde (Mr. Pendry) and myself to the Department, and of the puzzlement of people in Tameside as to why Tameside appears to have done so badly under the formulae compared with other towns such as Rochdale and Oldham, which are within the same area of Greater Manchester. I hope that the Minister will look seriously at the particular problems of Tameside and the way in which this treatment has been particularly unfair to that authority.

Mr. Hunt: We do not regard as unfair the fact that we have increased the total spending for local authorities next year by 11 per cent. above the current figure and the amount of external finance by 8·5 per cent. Obviously, we are now in a consultation process and I would not want to comment further, except to say how delighted I am that in Tameside more than 100 per cent. of people—[Interruption]—have now registered.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: So that local authorities can levy a community charge which is fair and is seen to be fair, has my hon. Friend had representations from local authorities worried about the treatment of reserves and balances which, as he knows, distort the perceived spending and


perceived needs of each authority, making it difficult for my hon. Friend to assess a reasonable and sensible support grant?

Mr. Hunt: I agree with my hon. Friend. The use of balances has always distorted the picture for local authorities. To compare like with like, we have endeavoured to leave the use of balances out of our calculations. Their use can create the kind of problems to which my hon. Friend refers.

Mr. Blunkett: In view of the obvious dismay on the Conservative Back Benches at the fact that the £1 billion bribe offered to the electorate to soften the political impact of the poll tax is clearly not working, will the Minister tell the House whether there are any further plans for financial changes between now and 1 April, whether he understands the existing administrative chaos and whether he understands and appreciates the fact that, whatever the Government do to try to bribe the electorate and to provide what are becoming known as sweeteners, the poll tax will show its full implications when people vote in the local elections in May and display their disgust at and distrust of the Government's proposals to use their money to try to persuade them that the tax that they do not want is acceptable?

Mr. Hunt: When the hon. Gentleman refers to administrative chaos, he can hardly be referring to the excellent work of community charge registration officers throughout the country in achieving a national average of 99·95 per cent. I greatly regret the fact that many local Labour parties have been associated with non-registration campaigns—which have been singularly unsuccessful. On implementation, we believe that the transitional relief scheme is generous and important in trying to overcome the problems in certain parts of the country. However, the certainty that is now present in the system will continue until 1 April, although we have not yet announced the results of our consultations on the amount of rate support grant and external finance.

Mr. Ward: Will my hon. Friend undertake to consider carefully all the representations that have been made to him recently about the community charge and especially those that were made by representatives of the borough of Poole to the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, lichen (Mr. Chope) last Monday, when they demonstrated clearly that they had been treated unfairly in comparison with neighbouring areas? There must be other areas like this, so can my hon. Friend guarantee that they will all be considered carefully?

Mr. Hunt: In paying tribute to my hon. Friend for the robust representations that he has made on behalf of his area, I confirm that all the points that he and the delegation that he headed made will be considered carefully.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the wholly unsatisfactory nature of that reply and the fact that the Minister has refused to respond properly, I propose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. All that is necessary is to announce that a matter will be raised on the Adjournment. The hon. Gentleman need not go into the arguments now.

War Memorial, County Hall

Mr. Tony Banks: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he will take steps to ensure that the war memorial and inscripted marble in county hall, London SE1 will be safeguarded in the event of redevelopment.

Mr. Chris Patten: I understand that, as part of their proposals for the development of county hall, the London residuary body and the County Hall Development Group are prepared to provide for the restoration of the memorial and inscripted marble.

Mr. Banks: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that reply. Is he aware that the great majority of Londoners still find it most offensive that county hall, which was built with ratepayers' money to be the headquarters of the old London county council and then of the Greater London council, should be turned into something as wholly inappropriate as a luxury hotel? Will the Secretary of State take a message from this House to the spivs who propose to build a luxury hotel that the place will be taken back by the people of London for the government of London and that the Opposition will ensure that that happens?

Mr. Patten: My impression has been that most Londoners are able to contain their misery and despair a t the abolition of the GLC within the bounds of public decorum. The capital receipts from the sale of county hall will, in due course, be used for the benefit of Londoners—would that all the money which flowed through county hall in the past had also been used to the benefit of Londoners.

Mr. Hanley: Talking of war memorials, may I thank my right hon. Friend, his Department and the Property Services Agency for at long last illuminating the cenotaph in Whitehall? It is now a site of remembrance worthy or those who died for all of us and one of the most attractive monuments in London.

Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend has said, and I agree with him about the importance of what has been done and about the attractiveness of the result.

Miss Hoey: Will the Secretary of State tell the people of Waterloo what direct benefits their community will derive from the conversion of county hall into a luxury hotel, and especially what the benefits will be for people sleeping in the nearby bull ring?

Mr. Patten: As the hon. Lady knows, one proposal for the development of county hall is before an inspector at the moment and another is before the courts, so it would be injudicious for me to be drawn into too much detail in responding to her question. I am sure that one result of the development of county hall which would benefit the hon. Lady's constituents would be the creation of more jobs.

Mr. Robert G. Hughes: Does my right hon. Friend accept that many people will be glad to hear that the war memorial is to be preserved and properly presented for the benefit of the people of London? Does he also accept that, whatever one thinks about the structure of local government in London, county hall will not be needed again by any body that is established? Will my right hon. Friend take care about answering questions from the hon.


Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) because when the hon. Gentleman sees valuable things lying around county hall they tend to end up lying in his loft?

Mr. Patten: There are many places that I would like to visit, but I have never included the hon. Gentleman's loft among them. I accept what my hon. Friend said about the government of London. I also agree that it is important to protect the interior of county hall and, whatever our disagreements, that is a point on which the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) and I agree.

Mr. Allan Roberts: Is the Secretary of State aware that if the Government allow the demolition of any part of county hall it will be seen as an act of vandalism motivated by political spite, and as an attempt by the Government to prevent the next Labour Government from re-establishing Londonwide regional government based at county hall? We shall not be deterred. County hall is as much a part of our heritage—[HON. MEMBERS: "Ask a question."] I am asking a question.

Hon. Members: What is it then?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Allan Roberts.

Mr. Roberts: Is the Minister aware that county hall is as much a part of our heritage and of the Thames skyline as the Houses of Parliament? It is not surprising, however, that the Government refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of Ken Livingstone, given that they refuse to intervene to protect the former workplace of William Shakespeare.

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is right that the building in question is part of our heritage, but I have never regarded the GLC as part of that heritage.

Nature Conservancy Council

Dr. Thomas: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the chairperson of the Nature Conservancy Council; and what was discussed.

Mr. Chris Patten: My colleagues and I regularly meet the chairman of the Nature Conservancy Council. The most recent meeting was on 23 November, when my hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment and Countryside met Sir William Wilkinson to discuss proposals connected with the forthcoming reorganisation of the council.

Dr. Thomas: Will the Secretary of State, who will shortly be addressing an important conference to commemorate the 40th anniversary of the national parks, accept that the transfer of responsibility and the decentralisation of the scientific base to Wales is generally acceptable in Wales and that the combination of the powers with those of the Countryside Commission will provide a new body able to promote conservation and encourage access, within limits, to the Welsh countryside? Will he now state that it is the Government's intention to organise a joint statutory committee to ensure that Great Britain-wide and United Kingdom-wide issues are dealt with in the reorganisation?

Mr. Patten: I agree with the first part of the hon. Gentleman's remarks. We intend to establish a joint statutory committee. People in Wales, as in England and

Scotland, wish, as we do, to ensure that scientific matters which should be taken on a Great Britain basis are taken on such a basis.

Mr. Boswell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that both within and outside the Nature Conservancy Council and its advisory bodies, many more people support his restructuring proposals than have raised their voices against them?

Mr. Patten: I agree with my hon. Friend, and one of those who have supported our proposals is the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Gould: Has not the proposed dismemberment of the Nature Conservancy Council met with almost universal hostility on the part of all those directly concerned with conservation? There is still time to withdraw the proposals and I urge the Secretary of State to do precisely that. Does he not accept that his proposed palliative of some form of joint committee has also been decisively rejected as an inadequate piece of sticking plaster for a wound that should never have been opened? Would it not be better if he stayed his hand from surgery altogether?

Mr. Patten: I repeat that the Leader of the Opposition is among those people who have not condemned the proposals. I have in front of me, as barristers are able to say, a letter from the office of the Leader of the Opposition which says:
Mr. Kinnock … welcomes the proposal to establish a countryside council for Wales.
If the Leader of the Opposition welcomes the proposals for Wales, I do not see how he cannot welcome them for the rest of the country. Perhaps Labour party policy varies from one part of the country to another.
I share the hon. Gentleman's determination to ensure that we safeguard the science base of the Nature Conservancy Council's work. I share the Leader of the Opposition's determination to ensure that there is a profile for nature conservancy work in Great Britain. Our arrangements on the machinery allow for that. We are not talking about changing conservation policy, but changing the machinery, and that is justified. The only real difference between us and the Nature Conservancy Council now is whether or not there should be an independent chairman of the joint statutory committee.

Sir Hector Monro: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, despite what the governing bodies may have said or written to newspapers, the majority of Nature Conservancy councillors are firmly in favour of the changes, and the individual countries are particularly pleased because they look forward to a more practical involvement in nature conservation, with a stronger scientific base?

Mr. Patten: I note what my hon. Friend says. He has made a distinguished contribution to the work of the Nature Conservancy Council. I am sure that the majority to which he referred will be delighted at the confirmation that I have been able to give this afternoon and they will be delighted that the Leader of the Opposition agrees with them.

Water Charges

Mr. Michael: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how he intends that the level of payment to be made for water and associated charges in respect of domestic hereditaments will be determined in future; and from what date any change of system shall take effect.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): It is for each water service company to decide how to charge domestic customers for its services, subject to the limits placed on each company's charges by the Secretary of State and the director general, and the other conditions of their appointment. The use of rateable values as a basis of water charges will not be permitted beyond the year 2000.

Mr. Michael: Will the Minister therefore confirm three principles to the House now․first, that compulsory metering will not be introduced; secondly, that the new system, whatever it is, will have to relate the charge to the ability to pay; and thirdly, that nothing will be introduced that could be regarded as any sort of water poll tax?

Mr. Howard: There are provisions in the licence of appointment against any kind of unfair discrimination against different categories of customer. That is more than sufficient protection for water consumers.

Mr. Paice: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that metering means that people will pay more for the water they use and that a household containing a bigger family will pay more than a household containing one person, and, what is more important, the more water that they use, the more they will pollute, and that will conform to our policy that the polluter pays?

Mr. Howard: There is a great deal in what my hon. Friend says. Metering is used almost universally in other countries, but will not necessarily be adopted by the water service companies. It is for them to choose the most appropriate method of charging.

Mr. Beith: What will the Minister do about the impact of charges upon the customers of long-established private water companies, such as the Newcastle and Gateshead water company? Customers of those companies have already faced increases of more than 18 per cent., which is partly due to the demands of privatisation legislation. They will face greater increases, because those companies do not get the green dowry that is being given to the newly privatised companies.

Mr. Howard: We are engaged in discussions with those companies to decide the appropriate level for the limit on charges during the next 10 years, and those discussions are continuing.

Mr. Dover: Is the Minister able to confirm whether arrangements have been made for housing developers, with regard to the charges that they have to pay for the provision of water services to housing developments?

Mr. Howard: Infrastructure payments have to be made under the legislation by developers so that the costs that their developments impose on the water infrastructure are fully met.

Litter

Mr. Cran: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what estimate he has as to the number of tonnes of litter left on British streets every day; what was the average figure for 1988; and what was the figure for 10 years ago.

The Minister for the Environment and Countryside (Mr. David Trippier): No statistics of this nature are available, but it is perfectly clear that there is far too much litter on many of our streets. We are determined to put this matter right, and we shall shortly introduce legislative proposals to tackle the problem.

Mr. Cran: Does my hon. Friend agree that the key to the Government's estimable anti-litter proposals is not just an increase in fines, but enforcement? The City of Westminster is undoubtedly trying to solve the problem, but all we see is innumerable signs telling us of fines and nobody backing them up, with the result that Marsham street, in which the Department of the Environment and I reside, occasionally resembles a street in Cairo rather than London.

Mr. Trippier: I can give my hon. Friend the assurance he seeks. There will be strong enforcement powers in the forthcoming Environmental Protection Bill. Litterers who default on paying fixed penalties within the prescribed time will be prosecuted. That is an important element of enforcement. Moreover, an aggrieved citizen will be able to apply to a magistrates court for a litter abatement order. That is broadly welcome and means that a citizen will be able to take the local authority to court if he is not satisfied with the standard of cleanliness in its area.

Mr. John Evans: Would the Minister care to estimate how many tonnes of litter are left lying on Britain's trunk roads all year long? Is it not time that he instructed his ministerial colleagues in the Department of Transport to clean trunk roads such as the East Lancs highway, which is in my constituency and is so littered with debris and shoulder-high weeds that it often looks like the main thoroughfare in a refugee camp?

Mr. Trippier: I agree with every word that the hon. Gentleman has uttered. He knows that I am familiar with that road. I am delighted to be able to tell him that we shall deal with that problem in the forthcoming Bill.

Mr. Churchill: Will my hon. Friend enter discussions with supermarkets, brewers and the soft drinks trade to explore the possibility of introducing a system of refundable deposits on cans and bottles such as operates so effectively in Switzerland for example?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to confirm that we are anxious to talk, to supermarkets in particular. I am about to meet representatives of the leading supermarkets, and I hope to raise that issue with them.

Ms. Walley: Rather than extol the virtues of what Westminster city council has done, will the Minister face the fact that, for many years, that council did not charge for the collection of trade refuse? He has not so far got to the heart of the matter. What discussions is he having about the importance of waste reduction and waste minimisation, and applying a precautionary principle rather than enforcement? He is not giving local authorities


the money they need to deal with competitive tendering. Where is the ability to recycle in this? Where is the Government's real concern about the environment?

Mr. Trippier: I would not disagree with what the hon. Lady said about precautionary measures. When we are talking about waste minimisation, we are talking about recycling in the main. The Government have entered a partnership with Friends of the Earth to launch an initiative for recycling the city in Sheffield. I hope to have the support of the Labour party and other political parties represented in the House for it. We all hope that the initiative will be a success. We hope to learn from it and to replicate it elsewhere.
It is not fair for the hon. Lady to knock what Westminster city council has done. Its initiative to tidy up Westminster has been a tremendous success. The appointment of litter wardens has had a significant deterrent effect. We have chosen the city of Westminster as an example and are building the forthcoming Bill around it.

Mr. Tracey: My hon. Friend has quoted the example of the work that is going on in Westminster, but is he aware that other London boroughs are taking just as much action and setting just as good an example to the rest of the country, for example, Kingston's "Bright and Clean" campaign involves both schoolchildren and the community at large and in Wandsworth, which sets so many examples to other local authorities, there is an anti-litter blitz squad?

Mr. Trippier: I am anxious to pay credit where it is due and I am happy to confirm a number of examples in London where the local authorities have acted responsibly and can be held up as a superb example that the rest of the nation should follow. I hope to visit all the authorities that my hon. Friend has mentioned and I add to his list the London borough of Sutton, which has achieved a considerable degree of success in this area.

Water Quality

Mr. Win Griffiths: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he expects to receive a response from the European Community on the programmes presented to it to implement the tap water quality and bathing water quality directives.

Mr. Howard: I have received no indication from the Commission as to when it expects to respond.

Mr. Griffiths: Does the Minister agree that there is a good possibility that the Commission will insist on the implementation of both directives at an earlier date than many of the schemes that have been put before the Commission suggest that the Government are prepared to accept? Given that on the bathing water directive alone, the Government intend that £760 million worth of work will be done after 1993, does he agree that if the Commission insists on 1993 as the date, there will be a big shock for those people who are making short-term gains from the water privatisation?

Mr. Howard: No, the hon. Gentleman is wrong on all counts. Our programmes, which are very detailed, provide for the work that can be done to be done as soon as is practicable. I cannot believe that the Commission would

be so unreasonable as to insist on earlier dates. In any event, that would not be to the disadvantage of investors, who are entitled to a reasonable return on their capital in accordance with the provisions of the legislation.

Mr. Steen: Is my hon. Friend aware of the bad quality of the sea water along much of the coastline of south Devon, where a young lady swimmer caught hepatitis A last summer as a result of swimming in the sea? Does he agree that lengthening the outfall pipes will not solve any of the problems because it will simply divert the sewage right along the coastline to other beaches?

Mr. Howard: I agree that much needs to be done to improve the quality of our bathing waters, but the proposals of South West Water plc, in common with other plcs, amount to much more than simply lengthening the outfall pipes. Their proposals are carefully considered and prepared and will achieve compliance with the European Community's directive.

Mr. McGrady: Will the Minister discuss with his EEC colleagues the rise in pollution in the Irish sea, which is so damaging to the marine aquasystem? Will he suggest setting up a tripartite commission involving the Governments of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland and the Isle of Man to study pollution and to make suggestions for its eradication?

Mr. Howard: These matters receive careful and continuous attention by those of my hon. Friends within the Department who have responsibility for them.

Mr. David Shaw: Is my hon. Friend aware that in the run-up to water privatisation Southern Water announced that it would invest heavily to improve the sewage situation in the English Channel in the Deal, Dover and Folkestone area? Is he further aware that the privatisation will bring that investment forward and that more money will be available to improve the quality of the water in that area?

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Both his constituents and mine will benefit in precisely the way that he has identified.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: But if there are to be extra costs to meet EEC standards, who is to pay? Is the Minister aware that some stockbrokers are already warning the new shareholders that extra spending may require another rights issue? Will the Government allow that to happen or will Ministers step in again to put the interests of shareholders first? Will Ministers make taxpayers or consumers foot another bill on top of the £3 billion that the privatisation has already cost the taxpayers of this country?

Mr. Howard: The limits on price rises that I announced in August provide for the £24–6 billion investment programme which will take place during the next 10 years and accounts for the industry's predictable investment needs. The success of the privatisation lay behind part of the hon. Lady's question. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said in the Financial Times of 14 September that
Success … will be measured in terms of how enthusiastically the small investor goes for the issue.
I am content to accept his criteria, and on that test it is clear that the issue was a resounding success.

Miss Emma Nicholson: Does my hon. and learned Friend agree that this hostage to fortune matches in its eloquence and efficiency the hostage to fortune put forward earlier this summer by the hon. Member for Dagenham's colleague who said that South West Water would not be a triumph when it was offered for privatisation? That is now selling superbly.

Mr. Howard: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Labour party was determined to wreck the privatisation, did everything it could to wreck it and manifestly failed to do so. All we have from it now are the sourest of sour grapes.

Walkers and Ramblers

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what plans he has to increase access to the countryside for walkers and ramblers.

Mr. Trippier: The Government are committed to protect public access to the countryside through the rights-of-way network. We fully support the Countryside Commission's initiatives, working with local highway authorities, to raise the profile of rights of way work and improve the quality of access.

Mr. Bennett: Does the Minister accept that walking is a growing recreational activity in this country and that the number of people who enjoy it both in wild and mountainous areas and on urban fringes is steadily increasing?
We should look for new areas to which people can obtain access to avoid the overuse of some of the existing honeyspots. What are the Government doing to improve access as opposed to protecting existing access?

Mr. Trippier: We must put this matter in context. The 140,000 mile network of rights of way is, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the main means by which the public can gain access to the wider countryside. Walking as a recreation is certainly on the increase. The Countryside Commission has come forward with a new initiative entitled "Enjoying the Countryside". It has made specific recommendations to which we are anxious to respond and has also made specific recommendations to the highway authorities to which I hope that they will respond.

Mr. Colin Shepherd: Is my hon. Friend aware that in many districts around the urban areas of this country, footpaths are cluttered with a horrible accretion of discarded supermarket trolleys? When he meets the supermarket operators, will he take a strong line with them and ask them to introduce a system whereby before trolleys are taken into the stores supermarkets demand a deposit which can be reclaimed when the trolleys are left behind in the parking lot?

Mr. Trippier: I am sympathetic with the point made by my hon. Friend. I shall certainly ensure that this matter is on the agenda when I discuss the issue with the supermarket chiefs.

Mr. Denis Howell: Since 20 per cent. of the nation walk in the countryside each year and the Countryside Commission has just reported to us that up to half the rights of way are difficult or impossible to use․it estimates that one cannot walk further than two miles before reaching a ploughed right of way or some other

obstruction․will the Minister consider asking the Countryside Commission to take a new initiative to propose, with the regional sports councils and recreational councils, a new development plan for walking? That is desperately needed in this country. Will he consider increasing the Government grant to highway authorities from £14 million to £21 million so that they can meet their programme? Will he kindly consider giving the Countryside Commission default powers to deal with ploughed footpaths which need to be opened up but the landowners or farmers are unwilling to do that.

Mr. Trippier: I shall try to remember all those questions. In reply to the first, I am happy to respond positively to the right hon. Gentleman's request that we should approach the Countryside Commission to see whether we can enter into partnership with the regional sports councils. That seems to be a good idea. In terms of the amount of money that the Countryside Commission referred to in its report and the initiative that I mentioned earlier, the Commission suggests that a great deal can be achieved through money being made available by local authorities. The amounts are between £40,000 and £90,000 ․not high amounts but that money could go a long way. The right hon. Gentleman asked about the ploughing of footpaths which he said can destroy public enjoyment of the countryside. Of course there is legislation which says that footpaths should be reinstated within two weeks. I am not entirely satisfied that that is happening. I welcome the opportunity to say that farmers who break the law must expect to face the penalty.

Association of County Councils

Mr. Oppenheim: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment when he last met the Association of County Councils; and what matters were discussed.

Mr. Chris Patten: My Friend the Minister for Local Government and Inner Cities met the Association of County Councils on 6 December and discussed the proposals for the 1990–91 grant settlement.

Mr. Oppenheim: When my right hon. Friend meets the association in the near future will he make it absolutely clear that if community charge levels in Derbyshire are higher than expected it will be solely due to the profligacy of the county council whose spending included the cost of sending a delegation to that well-known home of liberal democracy, North Korea? Will he urge the county council to emulate the example of Amber Valley borough council which has saved a huge amount through competitive tendering and which has ploughed much of that money back into improved services, including environmental schemes and recycling?

Mr. Patten: I am sure that my hon. Friend is right to suggest that life would be much happier for charge payers and people in Derbyshire if Derbyshire county council were as prudent as the Amber Valley district council. My hon. Friend asked me to make representations to Derbyshire county council. Alas, as it is not a member of the Association of County Councils, I would not be able to get through to it in that way.

Mr. Hardy: Does the Association of County Councils share with many other bodies, including the Association of Metropolitan Authorities, the serious concern about the


inadequacy of Government regulations, especially with regard to toxic waste․an inadequacy which is deplorably and sadly continuing and is a very great problem in my constituency?

Mr. Patten: I hope that our proposals in the Environment Protection Bill will help to deal more sensibly with waste. As the hon. Gentleman may know, we have made proposals to the other members of the European Community about toxic waste and I hope that we shall have Community support in trying to follow them up in the OECD.

Mr. Hind: When my right hon. Friend meets the Association of County Councils, will he tell it that the community charge protects and benefits many people on low incomes? I am speaking especially of single pensioners and single-parent families. In my constituency 80 per cent. of council house tenants in receipt of housing benefit will not pay the full community charge and that also applies to 38 per cent. of owner-occupiers and private tenants. The only real danger to those people is from Labour-controlled county councils who will heap additional costs on the community charge in order to try to win seats that are held by Conservative Members.

Mr. Patten: I totally agree with my hon. Friend. The best way to help all charge payers, including those who are less well off, is to ensure that councils provide value for money and reduce their spending to what is absolutely essential. My hon. Friend was also right to mention the substantial support being given through benefits to charge payers. That will amount to at least £2·5 billion.

Nuclear Waste

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment if he has a meeting scheduled with Nirex before Christmas to discuss the disposal of low and medium-level nuclear waste.

Mr. Trippier: My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State does not expect to meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas.

Mr. Salmond: Although the Secretary of State will not meet representatives of Nirex before Christmas, will the Minister take this opportunity to bring some Christmas cheer to the north of Scotland? Will he instruct the nuclear agency to accept the democratic and overwhelming vote of the people of Caithness against the Nirex proposals? Does he accept that that vote, in line with other expressions of opinion throughout Scotland, makes it clear that no area of Scotland will consent to be somebody else's nuclear dustbin?

Mr. Trippier: We must put the matter into context. First, we are talking about planning applications not for the facilities but for test bore drilling. That is the point that the hon. Gentleman addresses. The matter is before my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and he is obliged to take into account views expressed by local people.

Mr. Skinner: Will the Minister have a word with the Secretary of State for Energy? Does he recall that when the Secretary of State was Chief Whip, he and three of his hon. Friends were not anxious about having that low-level nuclear waste dumped in their constituencies? Now that

the former Chief Whip is the Secretary of State for Energy and seems to believe that nuclear power is God's gift to the human race, perhaps he has changed his mind. Perhaps he might like to have it dumped in his constituency. Will the Minister ask him?

Mr. Trippier: Much of what the hon. Gentleman says is completely irrelevant to the question about Nirex. The principal point is that the safe disposal facilities have been suggested and welcomed by the House of Commons Select Committee on the Environment and the House of Lords Select Committee. I need hardly point out that those are all-party Committees.

Playing Fields

Mr. Harry Greenway: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment what measures he is taking to protect school and community playing fields; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Howard: It has long been Government policy that local authorities should consult sporting and recreational interests in considering any application for the development of recreational land. The Department is currently preparing a planning policy guidance note on sport and recreation which will consolidate and update the existing guidance.

Mr. Greenway: Is the Minister aware that we are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters?

Mr. Hayward: Not all of us.

Mr. Greenway: I did not say of all ages but perhaps I should have done. We are in danger of becoming a nation of Billy Bunters because playing fields are disappearing owing to local authority pressure on them for building. Is he aware that in my constituency the beautiful Cayton road playing fields—17 acres with trees and the rest․have been children's playing fields for over 50 years? The national Labour party says that it is in favour of retaining playing fields, but Ealing Labour-controlled council is doing its utmost to build on them and to take them away from the community and from children. Will he do something about it?

Mr. Howard: Were it not for the Government's sensible policy on these matters, the danger referred to by my hon. Friend might well exist. I know that he has made a strenuous effort to fight for the retention of the playing field to which he referred but he will understand that, as the decision may come before my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I cannot comment on the matter further today.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Minister know of any case where playing fields sold for redevelopment have been returned to use as playing fields? Does not the absence of such cases make vital a proper national Government strategy rather than mere guidelines?

Mr. Howard: We have asked the Sports Council, the Central Council of Physical Recreation and the National Playing Fields Association to combine to consider the matter and to determine whether it is desirable to compile a register of playing fields. That might go some way to meet the hon. and learned Gentleman's points.

Homelessness

Mr. Arbuthnot: To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment how many additional lettings over the next two years are expected to be made available for the homeless as a result of his Department's homelessness initiative.

Mr. Chris Patten: The Government estimate that around 15,000 additional lettings will be made available as a result of the extra £250 million to be allocated over the next two years to local authorities and housing associations for schemes to assist the homeless.

Mr. Arbuthnot: Is my right hon. Friend aware that that is extremely welcome news and that two ways of encouraging a reduction in homelessness are first, to encourage private tenancies rather than discourage them by rent controls and other restrictions and secondly, to encourage housing associations rather than rely or impose too heavily on local authorities? Will he confirm that the Government's policies are achieving precisely that?

Mr. Patten: My hon. Friend has certainly set out our objectives clearly. That is why, for example, we are proposing to double the Housing Corporation's programme in the next three years, which will allow it to produce many more homes. That is also why we have

encouraged the private-rented sector through legislation and in other ways. I am delighted that the business expansion scheme is providing an additional £350 million for private renting.

Mr. Soley: Does the Secretary of State recognise that almost every housing organisation recognises that this panic-striken cash hand-out is nowhere near enough to meet the disgrace of homeless teenage children begging on our streets, possibly for the first time in 80 years? Why does he not do what the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) urged a previous spokesman on housing to do, namely allow local authorities to use capital receipts from council house sales to build, repair and renovate? Why was it that when that Minister made that recommendation, he suddenly became a junior Minister fin the Northern Ireland Office?

Mr. Patten: The hon. Gentleman is the first person to describe the £250 million initiative that we have launched in that way. The figure that we announced a few weeks ago exceeded some of the figures we had been pressed for by housing associations, including one which represents the Labour party. It is insulting to refer to Northern Ireland as the hon. Gentleman did. Moreover, there would not have been any receipts from the right to buy if the Opposition had had anything to do with it.

Points of Order

Mr. Bryan Gould: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I draw your attention to the terms of Question 26 on the Order Paper? I should make it clear that I took the first opportunity I had to notify the hon. Member for Langbaurgh (Mr. Holt) that I intended to raise this point of order. I understand that he has now withdrawn his question. Nevertheless, the question was tabled and appeared on the Order Paper, which is why I wish to raise the matter.
The question asks
by how much more the rate support grant figure for 1989–90 would be increased if 2,000 of the residents of Langbaurgh were black.
The question is undeniably racially discriminatory in intention and it is racially offensive and inflammatory in effect. It breaches the usual rules of good order which we attempt to establish in this House, and it is potentially in breach of the statutory rules applied by race relations legislation.
How was it that the Table Office accepted the question? Are there not rules which we can deploy to protect the House against such offensive questions? In asking you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker, may I add that I invite the Secretary of State to join me in dissociating himself from the terms of the question?

Mr. David Winnick: On the same point—

Mr. Speaker: No. Why does the hon. Gentleman always rise when I seek to reply? I can give the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) the answer to his question. The Table Office accepted the question because various criteria are used in calculating rate support grant, including the make-up of the population. As for the motives, any hon. Member can table a question provided that it is in order. That is a matter for him.

Mr. Winnick: On the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I remind you that, when I raised the point of order about events in Hong Kong, it was valuable and a statement followed?

Mr. Speaker: I know. Oh, go on.

Mr. Winnick: My point of order arises from that of my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould). On Monday, when the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Mr. Marlow) made certain comments that many of us considered to be an incitement to race hatred, you said that every hon. Member has a right to express a view. If legislation forbids the incitement to race hatred and it is illegal outside the House, why is it that remarks such as those made by the hon. Member for Northampton, North or offensive questions about blacks are accepted by the Table Office? Does that mean that we can ask questions relating to the number of Jews, Catholics or Protestants? It is difficult to believe that such questions would be accepted.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think that the hon. Gentleman is challenging what I have said. I have already explained why the Table Office accepted that question. As to what the hon. Gentleman said about other matters, I can only remind him that, over many centuries, we have achieved

freedom of speech in this House, and it is for each hon. Member to decide how to use that right. As Mr. Speaker, I am certainly not in the business of rationing freedom of speech in this place.

Mr. Denis Howell: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. With great respect, and further to your explanation in response to the question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), I wonder whether you would reconsider the matter. I do not believe that local authorities collect information on the basis of the colour or the ethnic origin of citizens. That being so, I submit for your consideration ․and I accept that you need time to think about this․my belief that the question should not have appeared on the Order Paper, under any circumstances, as it is grossly offensive. Although we understand and value the help that we receive from the Clerk's Department, this is an unfortunate matter that requires further consideration.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall reflect further on this matter.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: Very wise.

Mr. Brian Sedgemore: Very prudent.

Mr. Speaker: Thank you.

Mr. Graham Allen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is an Opposition Supply day. This is taking time away from those who wish to speak.

Mr. Allen: This is a point of order for you, Mr. Speaker. Given the subsidy for the sale of our water industry of £3·3 billion, or £65 for every man, woman and child in the country, would it not be for the convenience of the House if the Secretary of State were to submit a memorandum and all the side papers involved in this matter to the Public Accounts Committee now, rather than in a year's time?

Mr. Speaker: What has that to do with me?

Mr. Allen: It is for the convenience of the House.

Mr. Speaker: The question is—

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: On another matter—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I am on my feet.

BILL PRESENTED

GOVERNMENT TRADING

Mr. Chancellor of the Exchequer, supported by Mr. Secretary Waddington, Mr. Secretary Walker, Mr. Secretary King, Mr. Secretary Ridley, Mr. Secretary Rifkind, Mr. Secretary Parkinson, Mr. Secretary Patten, Mr. Norman Lamont, Mr. Richard Luce, Mr. Peter Lilley and Mr. Richard Ryder, presented a Bill to amend the Government Trading Funds Act 1973 and section 5 of the Exchequer and Audit Departments Act 1921 and to repeal the Borrowing (Control and Guarantees) Act 1946: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 10.]

Mr. Speaker: On another matter—Mr. Campbell-Savours.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. As you were here during Question Time and heard what happened on water questions, and as you know that many Conservative Members of Parliament have bought shares in water companies and that Labour Members have refused to do so, is it right that those Conservative Members should be allowed to ask questions which, by their effect, may help further to drive up the price of water shares on the stock exchange? Is it not improper for them to ask questions that might influence whether a further rights issue should be made to secure further money for the water companies? Could you rule on this matter? Surely it is quite improper—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I have absolutely no knowledge of the shareholdings—

Mr. Campbell-Savours: They should he on the Register

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman said, "As you know". I have no knowledge of such matters. If they are recorded in the Register of Members' Interests, I would have knowledge of them, but I have no knowledge about the matters raised by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is taking time from his Front-Bench spokesman, but I will hear him.

Mr. Corbyn: Is it not correct that those Conservative Members who have bought shares in the water companies should now declare that and should not take any part in any debate or discussion of the matter in this House, because otherwise they could be thought to be feathering their own nests as a result of being Members of Parliament?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman knows that there are well-known rules about the registration of interests in companies. If an hon. Member had a certain number of shares that fell within those rules, he would have to register them.

Mr. Harry Cohen: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), which I well understand, would it now be in order for you to rule that an hon. Member can table a question asking for a breakdown by colour of how many people are stopped by immigration officials and how many are deported? A breakdown by colour would prove categorically that the Government are racist in their immigration policies.

Mr. Speaker: That is a hypothetical question. If the hon. Gentleman cares to table such a question, I shall look at it carefully.

Opposition Day

1ST ALLOTTED DAY

Mortgage Costs and Housing

Mr. Speaker: I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mr. Bryan Gould: I beg to move,
That this House condemns the Government's responsibility for the growing housing crisis; deplores the rise in mortgage interest rates which has destroyed family budgets, cost some their homes and placed home ownership beyond the reach of others; warns that Government-inspired increases in council rents above the rate of inflation will cause hardship to many low-income people; deplores the Government's failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock and the consequent shortage of affordable housing; and believes that the scandal of growing homelessness is just the most visible sign of a wider housing failure.
Of all the mistakes made by the Government, and there have been many, none is more resented, none is more painfully felt and none is more likely to cost the Government support than the steep and sustained increase in interest rates․a rise which in itself is an admission of economic failure and is a sign of desperation in the pursuit of economic policy, and a rise which has its most immediate effect, and does its most immediate damage, in its impact on mortgage rates.
The anger and resentment that that has caused are not just the result of the damage that it has done to family budgets, although that is real enough. Average monthly repayments for the country as a whole since May 1988 have risen from £259 to £347, an increase of no less than £88 per month. In London, the figures are even worse, because they reflect a rise of £162 per month. Increases of that magnitude will have shattered even the most careful of household budgets and will have plunged thousands of families into the most desperate of financial plights.
But the anger and resentment arise not just on that account, nor just because, for a tragic minority, the increase has meant the shock, despair and humiliation of losing their homes. In the first half of this year there were 6,350 building society repossessions. There is precious little comfort to be gained from the fact that that high figure represents a small decrease from the even higher figure of the earlier year or two; little comfort because the lower figure reflects the fact that building societies are playing a somewhat smaller proportionate part in the provision of mortgage lending, and even less comfort because, in prospect, the outlook is much grimmer.
Already we see the volume of mortgage arrears growing fast. In June this year, no fewer than 45,100 mortgages were between six and 12 months in arrears, which represented a jump of more than 20 per cent. What is already a grim reality for many people is rapidly becoming a frightening prospect for many more.
But the true reason for the widespread resentment and anger is the sense of betrayal felt by many thousands of people who recall that they were enticed on to that treadmill of spiralling house prices, of ever-rising mortgage repayments, by a Government who told them that we were enjoying an economic miracle; a Government


who made them glib promises to the effect that home ownership was a risk-free one-way bet; but a Government who, with equal irresponsibility, threw everything into reverse when their own mistakes caught up with them and then blamed the victims of those mistakes for being so easily duped.
It is the Government's heartlessness, their almost moralistic zeal in turning the screw, which has added insult to injury, and it is that which has created mortgage misery for millions. In case anybody thinks that that easy alliteration conceals nothing much, let us be clear that it conceals a true degree of desperation. It is that desperation which has made home ownership an impossible dream for some and an impossible nightmare for many more.
It is not just mortgage payers who are suffering. Tenants, too, find that their housing costs are going up sharply. It is not surprising that tenants feel somewhat aggrieved at what they consider to be the excessive attention paid to the interests of mortgage payers. They, too, find that housing costs are rising inexorably against them. Council tenants have been put on notice by Ministers․including the Secretary of State․that the Government intend to force their rents up to near market levels. The new subsidy arrangements and the ring-fencing provisions of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 mean that the Government now have the power to make their writ run, whatever local democracy may require or suggest. Council rents are set to rise much higher than the inflation rate, often against the wishes of local authorities and almost always against the interests of some of the lowest-income families in our society.
At the same time, private sector rents will also rise sharply. The Housing Act 1988, which allows market rents to be charged in place of fair rents and reduces security of tenure, is just beginning to have its malign effect. What that will mean in terms of affordable housing is clearly shown by a survey commissioned by the Department of the Environment and carried out by Price Waterhouse, which was published in August. It shows that a married couple with two children and an income above the qualifying level for housing benefit would be able to afford a market rent for a two-bedroomed house in only two cities in the country․Leicester and Newcastle. For the rest, market rents will mean that private rented accommodation is placed beyond their reach. That is a prime instance of the futility of looking to the market to meet unmet housing needs.
Even housing associations, which are now looked to by the Government as the instrument of salvation, will find that their rents will rise as they are forced to turn to private sector funding. It is little wonder that over the past year housing association rents have risen by no less than 24 per cent.

Mr. Tony Banks: Is my hon. Friend aware that, in the London borough of Newham, we will be faced next April with rent increases of about 21 per cent. because of Government diktat? Is he also aware that, because of the benefit changes last April, rent arrears—not only in Newham but throughout the whole of London and the country․went up by an average of 38 per cent.? What impact does he think that this enforced rent increase will have on rent arrears throughout the country?

Mr. Gould: My hon. Friend lends detail and substance to the point that I am making. His experience in his borough is echoed and repeated up and down the country ․certainly in my part of London. He is right to point out that rent arrears have risen and the difficulties have become manifest before the real impact of the recent changes has been felt. Therefore, as I have argued on other issues, the prospect is even grimmer than the current reality.
Wherever people turn, as owner-occupiers or tenants in the public or private sector, they find that the cost of housing is moving sharply and inexorably against them. That is sometimes because of deliberate and direct Government policy․as with the recent legislation—and sometimes because the market is distorted by the excessively high interest rates imposed by the Government.
However, affordable housing is a matter not just of price but of supply. Here, too, the record of the Tory Government is appalling. Housing completions have fallen steadily throughout the decade. In the public sector, they have fallen from 113,800 in 1978 to just 24,800 last year. The total number of housing completions has fallen also․from 240,800 in 1978 to just 184,600 last year. Those figures complete a picture of a grim decade for house building. Worse is to come. I expect the Minister—

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): rose—

Mr. Gould: The Minister rises on cue.

Mr. Howard: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that 2 million houses have been built in this country since the Government took office? Does he regard that as a record of failure in house building?

Mr. Gould: I am grateful to the Minister for putting the question in that direct and simple way because I can give him a direct and simple answer. Yes, that is housing failure. When it is measured against the unmet housing need․which I will come to shortly․the record is appalling.
It is far worse than the house completion record under the Labour Government. The Government having decimated․in literal terms, having far more than decimated․public sector house building, the prospects for the Government's policy on private sector house building are equally grim. Even the brief 1988 revival in private sector house completions has come to a sticky end as the construction industry grapples with the full brunt of high interest rates. During the first six months of 1989, there was a 17 per cent. slump in private sector housing building. Comparing the second quarter of this year with the second quarter of 1988, we see that fully a fifth of what was then achieved has been lost.
It is hard to understand how value added tax on new domestic house construction will help. I, in common with many others, felt a sense of alarm when the Secretary of State failed earlier this afternoon at Question Time to rule out in absolute terms any willingness by the Government to accept diktats from the Commission in Brussels.

Mr. John Heddle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on this point, because it was the reply to my question to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment to which he has just referred. My interpretation of his answer was not quite the same as the hon. Gentleman's. My right hon. Friend said


that he would consult his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer to ensure that all possible opposition was mounted if the EC threatened to impose VAT on domestic house construction. The hon. Gentleman is a responsible Member of the House. He should not try to attach such a dishonourable interpretation to my right hon. Friend's answer.

Mr. Gould: I bear with equanimity the fact that the hon. Gentleman's interpretation and my interpretation of what the Secretary of State said are different. We start from different points of view. The hon. Gentleman is intent upon finding the most favourable interpretation. However, the hon. Gentleman has gone even further. Perhaps he should have given the answer at the Dispatch Box; it would have been a much better answer than that given by his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have no doubt that the hon. Gentleman is fair and honourable. I am sure that he will concede when he consults Hansard tomorrow that he added substantially to his right hon. Friend's answer and that my interpretation was exactly correct; that the Secretary of State promised only to consult the Treasury and that he gave no assurance, either on his own behalf or that of the Department or the Government, that he was implacably opposed to the imposition of VAT on domestic house building.
Housing costs have risen. Housing supply, in terms of new build, has fallen below what we have a right to expect. Housing supply is not just a matter of new build; it is also a matter of the condition of the existing housing stock. The brutal fact is that the condition of the existing housing stock is growing worse. There are now 2,400,000 houses in serious disrepair, or 13 per cent. of the total. To put those houses into proper repair would cost an estimated total of £30 billion. That is a shocking record for any civilised country, but it is especially shocking for a country and a Government who have enjoyed over £120 billion of North sea oil revenues. Surely the Government ought to have spent some part of that bonanza on providing decent housing for all our citizens.
The failures have not happened by accident. The problem is․we have had 10 years' experience of it․that the Government prefer dogma to decent housing. They are prepared to carry on a war of attrition against the most obvious and efficient instrument for the provision of housing, particularly for low-income families․the local authorities. The homeless and the badly housed are the innocent victims of that unilaterally waged war.
Local authority housing investment programme spending has fallen consistently over the past decade. In 1980–81, it was £3·37 billion, in 1982–83 it was down to £2·84 billion, and by 1988–89 it had decreased to £1·12 billion in total. The most lunatic expression of the Government's vendetta against local authorities and their role in the provision of housing concerned the spending of capital receipts. The councils have £ 8·5 billion of capital receipts which they want to spend on improving housing stock and housing provision. Incredibly, they are prevented from doing precisely that by central Government diktat.
I hold a regular surgery in my constituency, as I am sure most hon. Members do. Perhaps 80 per cent. of all those who come to see me have housing problems. The inability of hon. Members to deal with those problems is one of the most worrying aspects of our job. I rarely conclude my surgery, which can go on for many hours, without a feeling

of desperation and sadness that I can do so little to help. When people come to me and say, "Why can't the local authority spend a little more on putting my house into proper repair; why can't they build a few more flats for young married couples; why can't they spend some of the money that they must have received from the sale of council houses and council property?", I tell them that local authorities are not allowed to do that, as the Government have consistently prevented them from spending more than 20 per cent. of their receipts on those obvious and worthwhile purposes.
Almost invariably, my constituents look at rue pityingly. One can see the disbelief spread across their faces. They think, "Here is yet another politician flannelling on about absolute nonsense." They cannot believe that any Government could be so misguided and illogical as to impose such a stupid and damaging restriction.

Mr. John Maples: Most of my constituents who come to see me also have housing problems. What they have in common with the hon. Gentleman's constituents is that they are tenants of Labour authorities. Can he explain why the vast majority of empty houses, outstanding repairs and uncollected rents are in Labour-controlled areas?

Mr. Gould: That is a familiar canard. The rate of empty property in local authorities is lower than it is in housing associations and in the private sector, and substantially lower than it is in the rest of the public sector, where Government Departments predominate.
A housing crisis is building in Britain. Any conscientious Member of Parliament who carries out regular constituency surgeries will have seen the evidence. Those hon. Members who profess to be unaware of the growing housing crisis, the housing time bomb that is ticking away, must be uniquely advantaged and live in the most prosperous parts of the country, because elsewhere a growing tide of humanity is condemned to a miserable, depleted and distorted existence because people do not have proper housing.
Undoubtedly the most tragic victims of the housing crisis are the homeless. Let no one say that there is no homelessness crisis in Britain. Last year, 117,550 families were accepted on to homelessness lists. That means that 337,369 people are homeless. Even that figure is dwarfed by the 242,000 families that applied for the status of being homeless. Homelessness is not a problem only in London. It is a problem in Gateshead, where homelessness has risen by 27 per cent. in the past year. In Colchester, it has risen by 48 per cent. and in leafy Salisbury by 52 per cent.
Those appalling figures do not include the most distressing manifestation of homelessness. The young people who are forced to beg by day and to sleep on our streets by night are not included in the figures, yet they are part of the daily experience of everyone who walks the streets of our major cities, particularly our great capital city. They are a blot on the face of this country and in particular on the Government's record. It is a sight that we had assumed had been pushed unmourned into the less salubrious pages of our history. Faced with that problem, the £250 million spread over two years which was announced in the Autumn Statement is no more than a drop in the ocean. It is totally inadequate to deal with the size and the seriousness of the problem of homelessness.
This problem has not arisen by accident. Homelessness is simply the most visible sign of a wider, deeper housing failure. A housing failure is not just an ordinary failure of Government policy; it is a failure by the Government to fulfil one of their basic duties to the people. There is something peculiarly shocking about the failure of a rich, self-proclaimedly civilised country that fails to provide a decent roof over the head of each of its citizens.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: rose—

Mr. Gould: I am about to finish.
There is nothing more fundamental to human dignity than a house of reasonable comfort and security.

Sir George Young: rose—

Mr. Gould: I am about to wind up.
There is nothing more destructive of family cohesion or individual self-respect than condemning people to unacceptable housing conditions.
The solution clearly requires a fundamental reappraisal of many aspects of policy․the growing regional imbalance, the failure to use planning law to establish adequate new provision of housing, particularly in the south-east, the allocation of resources both between housing and other services and within the housing budget between owner-occupiers and others. Of course the solutions require fundamental reappraisal, but much more immediate steps can be taken․the reversal of the serious and avoidable mistakes in housing policy which have been made by the Government and which have made our housing conditions in modern Britain not just a crisis but a scandal.

The Minister for Housing and Planning (Mr. Michael Howard): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question, and to add instead thereof,
welcomes Her Majesty's Government's commitment to home ownership throughout the last ten years which has enabled many more people to own their homes; recognises the benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the Right to Buy for council tenants; further recognises that the Government's sound economic policies have played an important part in facilitating the growth in owner-occupation; and urges the Government to maintain those policies in the interests of home owners, first-time buyers and the nation as a whole.
In common with speeches that we are accustomed to hearing from the Labour Front Bench, that of the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was long on a description of problems, much of it inaccurate, and short, almost to the point of non-existence, of any suggestion as to how he and his party would set about tackling those problems. It was so lacking in any substance that, as a serious contribution to debate on housing policy, it was little short of a disgrace.
We should not be too hard on the hon. Gentleman, because we know what trouble he gets into when he embarks upon the task of suggesting what policies might be used to deal with these problems. We know of his contributions to clarifying the Labour party's policies on housing, even before he was given his present responsibilities. His television appearances on these and other matters have become collectors' items, and we greatly look forward to more.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: What about our homeless?

Mr. Howard: I am coming to that. I am interested in dealing with policies. Thanks to Brian Walden's revealing interview with the hon. Member for Dagenham, we know what the hon. Gentleman's policy would be—to target and penalise all those who seek to move to a larger house. People with growing families would bear the brunt of the policies which the hon. Gentleman did not dare mention during his long speech this afternoon.
The hon. Gentleman even had the good grace during the interview to tell these growing families that, although they would be "hit", they would be "fully warned", and, in any event, his proposal was "in their interests". He finally assured them that their inability to house a growing family would be simply a "fairly marginal impact" of Labour's policies. The hon. Member for Dagenham was advocating direct controls on mortgages.
None of us should be surprised by such an approach, because it is the approach of the Socialist down the ages. Socialists believe that, if one sees a problem, one should slap on a control and form a queue. The Labour party is never happy without a queue or two, or preferably three or four. It satisfies its natural predilection for the hair-shirt. Its approach has always been that if everyone cannot have something, it should ensure that getting it becomes as painful as possible for those who can.

Mr. Gould: The Minister mentioned hair-shirts. Has he bothered to ask himself how many of his own constituents are obliged to wear the hair-shirt because of the Government's policy of high interest rates? How many repossessions have occurred in his constituency, or has he not bothered to find out?

Mr. Howard: I am well aware of the problems. I shall deal with them in my speech, and I shall deal with high interest rates as well. The hon. Member for Dagenham has clearly advocated the imposition of physical controls on those who wish to move into a larger house because they have a growing family. That is his policy, which was announced clearly in the interview to which I referred. It is right that we should all know about it, and that none of us should be under any misapprehension.

Mr. Gould: I had hoped that the Minister would not pursue this futile course for much longer, but as he insists on misdescribing what I have said․and what many others beyond the Labour party have said, including many Conservative Members․I must make it clear that we have always sought not to prescribe policies for 1991 or 1992, when a Labour Government will at last come to the rescue of the British people, but to rebut the suggestion that is constantly put from the Dispatch Box that there is no alternative to high interest rates.
There is a huge consensus across the board, embracing hon. Members of all parties, including some of the Minister's hon. Friends, that the Government are wrong to impose mortgage misery on so many people on the pretext that there is no alternative but high interest rates. The last thing that I․or anyone else․has done is to prescribe policies in this respect for the next Labour Government. We are saying that at present, in the dilemma and mess that have been created by this Government, it is simply not the case that there is no alternative to high interest rates.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman has a short memory. I have here the full transcript of his interview with Brian Walden, in which he clearly and specifically set out his alternative to higher interest rates. His alternative was the imposition of direct controls on the amount that a person could borrow if he wanted to move into a larger house. I want to pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman. His great merit ․although I am sorry to see him resile from it somewhat this afternoon․is candour. He is very open about these matters.
Some Labour Members find the hon. Gentleman's approach uncomfortable. The right hon. Member for Birmingham, Sparkbrook (Mr. Hattersley) could not wait to slap down the hon. Member for Dagenham. He went on to the Walden programme the next week․the earliest possible opportunity․to disown his hon. Friend. He said:
there is no way in which we are going to penalise a family which wishes to buy a larger house".
The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith), the shadow Chancellor of the Exchequer was equally unhappy. He put forward his own remedies. He has it in mind to solve the difficulties by entering into a social contract with the clearing banks. He would not come forward with straightforward controls, as the hon. Member for Dagenham did. The right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East believes that he could achieve the same objective by nudges and winks, and by backdoor deals with the bankers. I congratulate the hon. Member for Dagenham on his straightforward approach. It was no doubt his remarks that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) had in mind when he wrote a letter to Roof, the magazine of Shelter, in which he said:
Our plans for owner-occupiers are not for the fainthearted.

Mr. Roland Boyes: If the Minister proposes to speak for the same length of time as my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould), he must now be more than halfway through his speech, yet he has not touched on the greatest problem of all in our society, which is the large number of homeless people. What attempt has he made to count the number of homeless people, especially in London, and what measures does he propose to take to do something about it? Is he aware that one telling manifestation of this great sickness in the Government's policy is that nearly every evening someone sleeps right outside the Palace gates? Is not that a disgrace, and is it not time that the Minister reached the part of his speech dealing with the subject about which people want to hear?

Mr. Howard: Homelessness is an aspect of the problem which we must take very seriously indeed and with which I shall certainly deal during my speech. But we do not get anywhere by describing problems without advancing solutions to them. The hon. Member for Dagenham spent his whole speech in an inaccurate description of the problems without giving us so much as a paragaph of solutions.

Mr. Bob Cryer: You have already said that.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Cryer: The Minister has said that.

Mr. Howard: That is why—

Mr. Cryer: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not wish to give way, hon. Members must restrain themselves.

Mr. Cryer: It is on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Oh, it is, is it?

Mr. Cryer: Mr. Speaker, we have a Standing Order that requires hon. Members to desist from persistent repetition. We have already heard, on four occasions, the Minister's attack on the Labour party, and we are anxious to hear what the Government propose to do. I invoke your support, Mr. Speaker, because tedious repetition is out of order.

Mr. Tony Baldry: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am a little confused. Although I have been in the House for six years, I do not seem to have caught up with things. I thought that today was an Opposition Supply day and I thought that those were the days on which the Opposition, in addition to attacking the Government, helped the House towards a better understanding of their policies. I came here this afternoon in the hope that I would be educated about the Labour party's housing proposals. So far, I have not heard one scintilla of a positive suggestion of what the Labour party intends to do in its housing policy or of how it would cost its proposals.

Mr. Speaker: That is more a debating point than a point of order.
A propos tedious repetition, if I had judged that there was tedious repetition, I would have intervened, but I did not judge it. We should get on with the debate. A great many hon. Members wish to participate, and if the Front Bench spokesmen are constantly interrupted, other hon. Members may be disappointed.

Mr. Howard: It is precisely because of the omissions of the hon. Member for Dagenham that it falls to me to tell the House what the Labour party's policy would be, and that is what I have been trying to do.
Our policies for owner-occupiers could not represent more of a contrast with those of the Labour party, and our approach has been proved effective by 10 years of success. Since 1979, the proportion of owner-occupied households has increased from 57 to 68 per cent. We have one of the highest rates of owner-occupation in the world—higher than that in the United States․and the number of first-time buyers in 1988 was about double the number in 1979.
About 6 million people have bought their own homes for the first time over the past 10 years․more than I million of them under the right-to-buy provisions against which the Opposition fought so bitterly. The Labour party would still interfere with the unrestricted right to buy. The housing resolution passed by the Labour party conference in October supported the right to buy,
providing that the local authority replaces the stock sold, and those wishing to resell allow the Council first option to buy.
The Labour party has still to come to terms with the undoubted aspiration of the vast majority of people in Britain to own their own homes. That is an aspiration which the Government unequivocally welcome and will do their utmost to assist.
I acknowledge that many home owners find the present level of interest rates very difficult indeed, but that difficulty must be seen in perspective. It would be wrong to make any simplistic links between mortgage interest rates and homelessness. There are many causes of mortgage arrears other than high interest rates. One of the most significant of them is unemployment, and the reduction in unemployment by 1·5 million since 1986 has significantly helped the overall picture on mortgage arrears, as it has helped in so many other ways.
Clearly, we have nothing to learn from the Opposition about owner-occupation. We promote it, and they obstruct it, and the sooner that people understand that difference, the better.
When we last discussed housing, the hon. Member for Hammersmith alleged that the right to buy was the Government's sole housing policy. That is also a travesty. During the next three years, total central Government spending on housing and their grants and credit approvals to local authorities for housing will add up to almost £20 billion. That sum of money will largely benefit the minority of the population who are not owner-occupiers. I hope that even Opposition Members will acknowledge that £20 billion is a large sum by any standards. It is worth noting that no sums are mentioned in the Opposition's policy review.
Opposition Members come to the House day after day, promising to spend more on houses, as well as everything else under the sun, but the shadow Chancellor constantly says that any extra spending would have to await the creation of additional resources. The promises of the Opposition are not worth a row of beans. We do not rely on promises, we rely on action․£20 billion worth of action.

Mr. Peter Thurnham: My hon. and learned Friend is talking about resources. Will he bear in mind the need for a balance between new housing and the environment? If my constituents are successful in their High Court battle with Barratt's today, will he remind Bolton's Labour council of its duty to defend covenants and to ensure that Birtenshaw farm remains free from development?

Mr. Howard: I will not be drawn into making comments about a case that is before the High Court today, but I know how hard my hon. Friend has fought for the cause of his constituents.
We acknowledge that owner-occupation is not the answer for a minority. Some people do not want, or cannot afford, the responsibility of home ownership. That is why we are working to restore quality, diversity and choice to the residential sector. The deregulation of new lettings in the Housing Act 1988 will help to revive the private rented sector, which was almost entirely killed off by the rent controls introduced by successive Labour Governments.
Already, some £350 million has been invested in business expansion schemes to provide private sector tenancy lettings. Private sector finance is now being attracted to support housing association projects.
The Opposition want to destroy that revival. The hon. Member for Hammersmith conceded in the Financial Times last year that some private investors may be

frightened of investing in rented houses when they realise that a Labour Government would impose rent controls. Some? All private investors would be frightened, and the revival would be utterly destroyed. Not only would the Labour Government reimpose rent controls, but tenants of non-residential private landlords would be given the right to buy, or to transfer to a council landlord.
Do Opposition Members believe that any of Labour's policies to penalise the private rented sector would encourage investment in it? How can they endlessly bang on about housing shortages, but at the same time make proposals that by their own admission would scare away much-needed investment in housing? If people who can afford market rents choose to rent privately and withdraw from the market, they will release more subsidised rented homes for those people who are most in need. That is an objective which should be encouraged by hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Tony Banks: In the private rented sector, there has been an increase in the number of houses available for rent, because people have had to move out when they cannot afford to keep up with the mortgage payments. Estate agents have put houses that are up for sale in to the rented market. That increase has happened by default.
Can the Minister explain another statistic? Ten years ago, nine families were in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Newham; now, the number is 1,151, yet only 3·5 per cent. of our own housing stock is vacant.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman examines the statistics on repossessions and the causes for them, he will see that the assumption that lay beneath the first part of his question is without any foundation whatever. The facts simply do not support it. It is typical of Labour's approach that its one and only solution to the problem of housing shortage is to increase our municipal housing stock, although we already have the largest in western Europe.

Mr. John Battle: What about bed-andbreakfast accommodation?

Mr. Howard: I am coming to that.
Our approach is to encourage choice in the social rented housing market. We do not want to increase the number of monolithic council housing estates or to strengthen local authorities as the monopoly suppliers of rented housing. That is why we want new provision to come primarily from housing associations.
In the next four years, we shall more than double the Housing Corporation's main programme, from £815 million this year to more than £1·7 billion by 1992–93. That should permit a doubling of output to about 35,000 dwellings in that year alone. Such steps to increase the supply and diversity of rented accommodation will help to tackle the imbalance between supply and demand, which is one of the causes of homelessness.

Mr. Martin M. Brandon-Bravo: Will my hon. and learned Friend give way?

Mr. Howard: I hope that my hon. Friend will forgive me, but I must press on.
In the meantime, we fully acknowledge that further immediate action is required to help the homeless. That is why we are providing an extra £250 million over the next two years for local authorities and housing associations in stress areas. Those additional resources should provide


approaching 15,000 extra lettings. That should be compared with the total number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, who number about 12,000. That is our response to this problem. It is a serious response and on a considerable scale. It will have a considerable impact.

Mr. Derek Fatchett: rose—

Mrs. Alice Mahon: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is not giving way.

Mr. Howard: The motion refers to the Government's alleged failure to maintain the condition of the housing stock. The hon. Member for Dagenham said that its condition was getting worse, but he failed to support that assertion with one piece of evidence. He is wrong: nothing could be further from the truth.
There are 2 million more houses in England today than there were in 1979, and the English house condition survey shows that, between 1981 and 1986, the number of dwellings that lacked basic amenities fell by no less than 41 per cent. That gives the lie to the hon. Gentleman's assertion. Moreover, there has been continued improvement since 1986, so there is not a shred of evidence to support the assertion in the Opposition's motion. It is a typical piece of undiluted scaremongering, and I hope that, on reflection, the hon. Member will have the decency to recognise that and to withdraw it. I give him the opportunity to do that now.

Mr. Gould: Will the Minister enlighten us by telling us the number of houses that are in serious disrepair?

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's argument was that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] I challenge him to produce one piece of evidence in support of his assertion that matters are getting worse. [Interruption.] He cannot do so. His silence speaks volumes. [Interruption.]
We suggest that more should be done to improve things. Unlike the Opposition we make no apology for concentrating assistance on people in greatest need. [Interruption.] We have acted․ [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let us have an end to this running commentary. It does not help the debate at all.

Mr. Howard: We have targeted home improvement grants on people on the lowest incomes. We have almost doubled the amount of money available for home improvement grants, and now we are ensuring that the increased resources go to those who need them. Labour's policy review says:
We will review the renovation grant system so that it relates less to people's means.
That is a typically cockeyed approach.
We have established programmes for Estate Action and housing action trusts that will provide huge additional resources for the most rundown inner-city council estates. Yesterday in Sunderland I announced the appointment by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State of the first shadow chairman of a housing action trust. I also visited Hartlepool, which I understand is a town of particular interest at the moment to those in powerful places in the ranks of the Labour party. On one estate alone in Hartlepool, we have made available £3·5 million over three years to improve the conditions of the people living there. Those improvements are dramatic and have transformed

the lives of those people. While the Opposition table carping, whingeing motions, we are getting on with the business of improving people's housing standards.

Mr. Gould: The Minister challenged me to produce figures to support my contention that the condition of the housing stock has got worse. If he will look at the figures for dwellings in serious disrepair, he will see that in 1976 there were 859,000 such houses, representing 5 per cent. of the total; that in 1981 there were 1,178,000 such houses, representing 6 per cent. of the total; and that in 1986 there were 2,400,000 such houses, representing 13 per cent. of the total.

Mr. Howard: I do not accept those statistics. A much more accurate way of looking at this matter is to consider the proportion of houses lacking basic amenities. If the hon. Gentleman looks at those statistics, he will find that there has been a considerable․indeed, a dramatic—improvement in the condition of the housing stock during the lifetime of this Government.
At the centre of the debate is the issue of high interest rates and the problems that they cause homeowners. I readily acknowledge the hardships that such a level of interest rates causes. My right hon. Friend the Chancellor has often made it clear that high levels of interest cause difficulties but that interest rates must and will remain high until inflation has been brought back down. Persistently high levels of inflation, such as those that we experienced under the last Labour Government, would hurt everyone in the country, and homeowners would certainly not be exempt. It is wholly in their interests for a tight rein to be kept on inflation, and that we are determined to do.
As we have seen, the Labour party has no coherent policy to deal with inflation. However, apparently one oil' its few clear policies on housing, which has been referred to by the hon. Member for Dagenham and was set out in a letter written to me last week by the hon. Member for Hammersmith, is to allow local authorities to spend all their capital receipts on housing.
It is an interesting reflection of Labour's long-trumpeted commitment to a regional policy that this commitment would unleash about £8 billion of spending power, which would be concentrated largely in the south-east of England. Indeed, the hon. Member for Hammersmith had the grace to admit at a press conference last week that removing restrictions on the expenditure of capital receipts would produce clear inflationary pressures. It is not surprising, therefore, that that policy is not even mentioned in Labour's policy review. Indeed, Roof magazine noted:
Labour's review sadly does little more than express worthy sentiments in a bubble bath of irrelevant platitudes.

Mr. Clive Soley: rose—

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Howard: No, I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity later.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Howard: I am nearly at the end of my speech, and I am not giving way.

Mr. Soley: rose—

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman will have his opportunity to make his speech in due course— [Interruption.]

Mr. Soley: If the Minister will not give way, I shall have to raise the matter on a point of order—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Soley: I regret having to raise this on a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not mind being quoted, but I object to not being quoted anywhere near accurately. I said that the £8 billion would not and could not possibly be used in one year. If it was, it would be inflationary, but I said that there was no possibility of that. That is the accurate quote.

Mr. Howard: The hon. Gentleman's policy is to allow the money to be spent as fast as it can be. That would lead to inflation. It is absolutely clear from what the hon. Gentleman said that the policy would lead to inflation, and that he recognises that.
It is clear that the Labour party will pursue policies on housing, as on other matters, that will inevitably fuel inflation, and it knows that. The Government will continue to pursue sensible housing policies to improve people's housing conditions. I invite the House to support the amendment.

Mr. George Howarth: It would be interesting for my hon. Friends to read the terms of the amendment, which refers to just one aspect of Government policy․owner-occupation, or the right to buy. That is fairly revealing. The failure of the Government's policy on housing is that until comparatively recently they felt it necessary to have a policy on only one aspect․owner-occupation. That policy started to come unglued in about 1985.
The housing portfolio changes hands so often in this Government that it is difficult for any Minister to get his feet under the table and become properly briefed before being sent off to do something else. The Minister can therefore be forgiven for not understanding all the statistics because he has not been in his post long and, no doubt, he will not remain there for long. The reason why the Government decided to extend their interest in housing policy beyond owner-occupation was purely economic. Some economists started to advise them that one of the problems that people moving particularly to the south-east, following the advice of the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) to get on their bikes, was that there was simply not enough rented accommodation available. That was the origin of the Housing Act 1988, and I and many of my hon. Friends served in Committee on that measure. That was the only reason why the Government decided to take any interest in rented housing.
Several of my colleagues want to speak, so time prevents me from detailing all the objects of the 1988 Act, but the main thrust of the Government's policy was to expand the supply of rented housing outside the public sector as it was then defined. In addition, in relation to local authorities, they wanted to deregulate the housing market and create various devices to break down what they regarded as local monopolies of council housing.
However, none of that adds up to a housing policy. The Government have not addressed the real problems in housing, which we shall describe in the debate. Even in their approach to the 1988 Act and the more recent Local Government and Housing Act 1989, the Government have not succeeded in achieving any constructive progress towards building up a coherent housing policy. The policies that they have implemented, piecemeal as they are, have not and will not succeed in solving any of the serious housing problems.
In this debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) has described some of the problems within the local authority sector and the growing problems of disrepair across the range of tenures. The Minister challenged my hon. Friend to produce figures, which he ably and quickly did, disproving the Government's argument․whether or not the Minister accepts the figures.
I have the December edition of the Institute of Housing's excellent magazine "Housing". I hope that the Minister will accept that, by and large, the institute is an impartial organisation which looks at the facts and tries to inform professionals and others interested in housing issues. The magazine contained a supplement dealing with the Autumn Statement and the Government's approach to housing, and to some extent I shall rely on that information. The Autumn Statement contains all the Government's proposals for spending on housing, which are set out in great detail. The supplement says:
Some £3 billion per annum is needed to deal simply with the backlog of disrepair, defects and modernisation of local authority housing stock, let alone to deal with homelessness, housing needs and the condition of private housing.
That is an unbiased conclusion about the Government's proposals. The Minister spoke about some of the initiatives that the Government have taken. On occasion I have supported them and praised Ministers and Departments when the initiatives have been usefully applied.
I mention a constituency matter to illustrate one of the difficulties arising from a piecemeal policy and no coherent approach. Some of the programmes start off well and with good intentions, but changes in priorities are often applied in a state of panic because something has gone wrong and the good intention of the new programme drifts into the sand.
On the Tower Hill estate in my constituency an effective Estates Action programme supported by the residents, the local authority and the Minister's Department has been running for three or four years. In connection with that there was probably the most detailed consultation exercise ever undertaken there. The consultation revealed that residents wanted improvements in the way that the estate was laid out and wanted some of the design problems put right. However, there are more problems than that on the estate. There is a lack of leisure facilities and economic opportunities for residents.
The action programme is about 50 per cent. of the way through and many improvements have been carried out. In response to such residents the Government extended the guidelines and I am sure that an application will soon reach the Minister's desk because the residents are looking for what they describe as multi-faceted schemes which involve an economic development initiative and an increase in leisure facilities. We are now told that, because the guidelines have been extended precisely to cater for


schemes such as the one at Tower Hill, we will have to compete with other authorities which have applied for similar schemes.
I repeat that the Tower Hill scheme is 50 per cent. completed but all the pioneering work carried out in my constituency will come to nothing because the rules have been changed and the goalposts moved, so all the benefits of the scheme will be lost. 1 hope that when the application reaches the Minister he will look at it in that light and decide that the pioneers of such schemes should be supported until the job is finished.
The Minister may be aware that the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), who is in the Chamber, and I have taken an active interest in housing co-operatives. Last year the Government produced an excellent document when the Minister's noble predecessor was in post. That document set out in some detail what should happen to housing co-operatives. My latest information is that because of the use of private finance, on which I have recently tabled questions, and especially in view of the guidelines that the Housing Corporation has recently sent out about how private finance should be tackled by housing co-operatives and associations, housing cooperatives will encounter grave difficulties in securing the private funding that they need to get their schemes off the ground. That is because they have no asset base.
There is all-party support for housing co-operatives and there is an all-party parliamentary group on the subject. If the amount of private money that the co-operatives can raise is restricted and the grant is insufficient to meet the deficiency, the co-operatives will have to move towards design-build packages. That means that one of the great benefits of new-build and rehabilitation co-operatives․control of the design process ․will be lost. I understand that there has been toing and froing and that disputes have occurred within the Housing Corporation board about how to handle the matter. I hope that the Minister will deal with it at some point. All the benefits and experience built up in the housing co-operative movement over the years could be lost if someone does not take the problem by the scruff of the neck and sort it out so that housing co-operatives can continue to produce the goods and important urban renewal initiatives in inner cities and outer estates. That is what they are good at and what they have achieved.
We all accept that a high level of homelessness is unacceptable in a civilised society. If one moves around London and other major provincial cities on any night of the week, one sees young people sleeping on the streets. Some may have drug and alcohol problems, which we all accept are difficult to resolve because they fall outside the scope of the main agencies, but many young people from my constituency and from those of my hon. Friends and of Conservative Members come to London because they are unable to secure employment in the north of England in some of the real economic black spots. When they arrive they find themselves in a double blind. If they do not have an address they are not taken seriously when they apply for jobs, and if they do not have a job they have difficulty securing accommodation, so they end up sleeping in cardboard boxes on the Embankment or in other places both in summer and on cold winter nights. It is an appalling condemnation of society that that should happen in this decade.
What are the Government's proposals on housing the homeless? What do they mean? What will they produce in

terms of initiatives? I draw the attention of the House to a submission in the Institute of Housing magazine, "Housing", which says that the Government's proposals do not add up to much. They do not make up for shortfalls in the housing investment that would have been necessary to head off the problem of homelessness in the past decade, so they will not resolve the problem of homelessness. That is the opinion of experts in housing whom the Government should heed and respect.
I wish to refer to some of the other issues raised in the Housing Act 1988. Much play was made of the fact that problems on housing estates and in inner city areas would be resolved by housing action trusts. The Minister announced such a trust for Sunderland today. Much play was also made of other proposals in part IV of the Act. Yet week by week we read in the housing press headlines such as:
Essex tenants vote to stay".
That article says:
Redbridge LBC tenants in Ilford voted by 5,418 to 2,780 against the plans to transfer the housing stock to Oakbridge Housing Association …
Brentwood district council also rejected transfer plans, by 2,953 to 708.
The Government have not realised that although people may quibble and criticise their local authorities they know, as we constantly said in the debates on the 1988 Act, that if they want to change the way in which the local authority housing department is managed they at least have recourse to the ballot box at local elections. They can say, "You have failed, so we shall put in another party." That right of council tenants who opted not to exercise the right to buy is of more worth to them than their trust in any other organisation, no matter how worthy.
The Government have clearly failed. They have not been inundated with requests from local authority tenants to transfer to housing associations or other organisations. They have not even been inundated by requests from landlords to register as approved landlords under the scheme provided for by the Act and run by the Housing Corporation. That part of the Act, which was almost the flagship of the Government's privatisation plans for housing, has been a complete and utter flop.
It is about time that Ministers and those who support them accepted that the measures introduced do not add up to a housing policy. There is no strategy. They are just playing politics with housing. They have very little to show for their efforts and that will continue to be so.
The Government set great store by their dealings with housing associations, but what is likely to happen to those bodies? The Autumn Statement contained some good news. I acknowledge that additional resources were put into the pot, but there are still problems. The Minister must be aware that many small housing associations are suffering the same difficulties as housing co-operatives in that they do not have the asset base to make proper use of the present scheme. The Government's attempts at a de facto privatisation of the housing association movement is likely to drift into the sand. The Government will probably have to increase the proportion of housing association grant, thereby undermining their own strategy to put the movement into the private sector. Their plan does not work for the smaller housing associations. If the Government do not do something to resolve the problems of small associations, they will end up with a series of local monopolies by large associations.
The Minister's last but one predecessor heralded small community-based housing associations as a wonderful innovation in inner cities, but if something is not done they will disappear completely. The Government must take action to increase the housing association grants to a level at which the private finance involved is negligible. The Institute of Housing says:
Even with such a grant rate increase, however"—
the institute believes that it should be increased to 80 per cent.—
new housing association lettings are likely to be at rents well above the National Federation of Housing Associations `affordability' guidelines.
Even if the Government increase the level of housing association grants, the amount of rent charged will be too great. The Government have failed across a whole range of policies because they have no policies. Their failure in housing is one of the most important among many failures which, in the near future, will ensure that my hon. Friends are on the Government Benches and the Conservatives on the Opposition Benches.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): This is a short debate. Unless speeches are short, I am afraid that some hon. Members will be disappointed.

Mr. John Heddle: The title of this brief debate is, "Mortgage costs and housing." I shall address my remarks particularly to mortgage costs and the plight of home owners who have borrowed more money than they prudently might have done. Perhaps I should declare a non-pecuniary interest as vice-president of the Building Societies Association.
Before you came to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there was an exchange of views between myself and the hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) on the imposition of VAT on non-domestic construction work. I take this opportunity to say that it is the duty of all hon. Members who take an interest in the construction industry and the provision of housing to anticipate events. It was in that context that I raised the matter in Question Time today.
Only six or seven brief years ago, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) will recall and confirm, the Government's view was that there would be no question of VAT being imposed on non-domestic construction work. Because of the rules of the European Court that have been passed down to us, we must impose VAT on non-domestic construction work. Post-1992 there is a strong possibility that the European Court will force the United Kingdom Government to impose VAT on domestic construction․whether on non-social housing, such as private sector housing, or across the board, I do not know, but it is our duty to anticipate the possibility of such events. I was encouraged today by the assurances of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State that together with our right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer all possible resistance would be presented to our European friends to ensure that that does not happen in the United Kingdom.
I was encouraged by the comments of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he appeared before the Treasury Select Committee recently and

admitted, with the benefit of that great gift of hindsight, that certain actions of the recent past should perhaps not have been taken. One of them was the delay between the announcement and the implementation of the abolition of double mortgage tax relief. The three-month delay in the implementation of that decision by the then Chancellor of the Exchequer undoubtedly increased house price inflation and encouraged people to borrow more than they should. If that had not occurred, the subsequent slump in the housing market, which we are witnessing now, particularly in London and the south-east and to a lesser extent elsewhere, would not have happened. It is incumbent on all hon. Members to learn from those lessons.
I am worried about the plight of the housing market and those involved in the construction industry. Companies, large and small, are being forced into liquidation. In particular, small companies are having to lay off gangs of bricklayers whom they have employed for years. Homes for tomorrow are not being built today, and I fear that that will cause an increase in house price inflation in two or three years' time. I ask Ministers to consider the matter not simply in the context of the defeat of inflation․I wholeheartedly agree with and support that policy․but in the context of young people who leave school today and look to buy their first home tomorrow. The housing market is in a state of stop-go. When the Government came to power I hoped that we would see the end of stop-go policies.
Young people and not so young people who are suffering from high interest rates on their mortgages were perhaps encouraged to borrow more than they should from the lending institutions, which include not just building societies but banks which entered the housing finance market. I hope that they will not be tempted to remortgage through some other institution, such as a foreign bank with some so-called product linked to the value of the deutschmark, the yen or the franc. I hope that they will be sensible and will return to their lending institution, lay their cards on the table and say, "We cannot afford to repay what we previously committed ourselves to." I am sure that if they do, they will receive a sympathetic hearing and that their lending institution will try to reschedule their borrowing, whether by extending the loan, freezing the interest or a combination of several levers, to ensure that their hardship is relieved.
In the Housing Act 1980 the Government introduced a tenants' charter․something which the Labour Government talked about and the Conservative Government have implemented. In particular, the charter sought to impose on local authorities a duty to compile a list of their tenants who would be prepared to sublet part of their accommodation that was surplus to requirements. The hon. Member for Dagenham told us that the majority of cases that he deals with at his advice bureau are about housing matters. I can confirm that from my constituency experience. A large proportion of those who come to my advice bureau are single and for one reason or another cannot or do not want to live with their parents. For them the answer must surely be to find short-term accommodation, perhaps lodgings in the town where they grew up and seek employment. The best way to find short-term accommodation is to search the local authority list to find the houses that are larger than the tenant's requirements.

Mr. Allen McKay: I am listening with great interest to the hon. Gentleman and two


points arise on subletting. First, the young single people who come to my surgery want a place of their own. Unfortunately, there is a shortage of suitable accommodation. Secondly, does not subletting interfere with a person's housing benefit? That acts as a disincentive to subletting.

Mr. Heddle: All of us, from the moment we leave school, want accommodation of our own, but we cannot always have what we want when we want it. Sometimes it is necessary to take what may be second best, but possibly better than the homelessness to which hon. Gentlemen have referred. The hon. Gentleman also mentioned housing benefit. Surely, for a widow or widower in a three-bedroomed house, to sublet a room that is no longer used except for the storage of trunks and other memorabilia will produce an income supplement which could be substantially in excess of what they might lose in housing benefit.
I wholly reject the motion in the name of the Leader of the Opposition and wholly support the amendment tabled by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ronnie Fearn: Tory Members have tried hard to put a brave face on the housing problem that the country faces. They have found excuses and ingenious ways of, shall we say, putting the problem into context.
I agree with many points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle), but people's everyday experience is so different. People know that things are wrong as they cancel their Christmas. They know that housing policy has failed as they see the pictures of cardboard city. After 10 years of Tory government they see housing policy in a shambles. They have begun to wonder whether the Government have any answers to the housing crisis.
Perhaps the most prominent issue is the rise in mortgage rates and repayments, which has been dubbed the Tory tax. The cost of Conservative mismanagement of the economy has been huge: the rise in interest rates from 9·8 per cent. in July 1988 to the present 14·5 per cent.; the increase in the monthly repayments on the average £30,000 mortgage of £75; and the increase in the monthly repayments on the average £60,000 endowment mortgage of more than £200. Those rises dwarf the tax cuts of previous years.
The Government used to talk about creating a stable financial climate—an environment where businesses and individuals could plan their investments. We presumed that they realised that people do not always plan ahead. We thought that they realised that people cannot always see what is round the corner. When people do not see what is coming, that does not make them imprudent. I invite the House to look at the most sophisticated economic forecasters, whose job it is to guess what interest rates will be in a year's time. In July 1988, when the mortgage rate was 9·8 per cent., none of them predicted rates of 14·8 per cent. at Christmas 1989, and they are the specialists. This Government do not apologise for their mistakes; they simply shrug their shoulders as if to say, "You should not have borrowed so much." So much for providing a stable financial climate.
The home owners have been hit and they are bearing the brunt of the Government's interest rate policy. They are being punished for this Government's mistakes. The

price for house owners is only too real. The number in arrears is beginning to grow. In December 1988, a total of 326,000 individuals were more than two months in arrears.

Mr. Allan Roberts: The hon. Gentleman and I represent opposite ends of the same local authority area. Is he aware that there has been a fourfold increase in homelessness in the Sefton local authority area, mainly caused by people having to default on mortgage payments? That is putting pressure on the supply of homes in Southport, where Sefton council houses the homeless. Itis also creating tremendous problems at the other end of the borough, in my constituency, where housing problems and homelessness are increasing dramatically.

Mr. Fearn: The hon. Gentleman is right. We thought Southport was the affluent end of the borough, and that Bootle would be the area to suffer most from homelessness. However, it is the reverse. Indeed, the whole of the Sefton borough has homeless people, including Crosby, Formby and the rural areas.
In December 1988, a total of 326,000 individuals were more than two months in arrears with their mortgage payments. By July this year, the number had shot up to 400,000, and that was before the recent rise in mortgage rates, before the poll tax demands arrive and before the rise in unemployment that the Chancellor mentioned yesterday. Independent housing experts expect the number in arrears to rise to more than 450,000 towards the middle of next year. That is almost half a million households, many of them families, that have to cut back drastically. That is half a million people living with the fear that they might lose their homes.
People say that building societies are being understanding and lenient and that few people are threatened with losing their homes. I am pleased to say that, in many instances, that is true and people are being allowed to extend their mortgages, capitalise their debts and take "repayment respite". Such flexibility is welcome, but it is not the whole story. Many of the new lenders are not friendly building societies. Even the high street banks—where I used to work—are not generally thought to be as understanding as the building societies and some of the new financial institutions can be described only as loan sharks. One firm advertised its mortgages:
Good news! Up to 35 per cent. saving on interest payments.
Such a firm will hardly have the decency to think twice about putting pressure on those in arrears, scaring them and then repossessing.
There is a lack of advice and information. Many lenders either do not give advice or are too busy to give the personal advice that is really needed. The voluntary and local authority finance groups that offer debt counselling are overworked and underfunded. Comments from a debt counsellor, as reported in a recent newspaper article, say it all:
Assistance can only now be given in dire emergencies…If we take on any more people we won't be able to fulfil our role as an advisory service properly.
As the number in arrears mounts, the pressure to repossess increases. It is already clear that the number of repossessions in the south is rising, and that it is likely to become an explosion in the new year. First, many people will not feel the pressure from the recent rise in rates until the new year. Secondly, next year there will be a rise in unemployment—that is forecast. Thirdly, there will be an


increase in the number of bad loans sold to professional debt collectors. It puts the fear of God into many people when they realise that debt collectors have hold of their mortgages.
Many people fear that the housing market may pick up just sufficiently to persuade lenders that it may be worthwhile to repossess. Any leniency by lenders until now may have sprung simply from self-interest. It costs to repossess, and the lender may not be able to sell the house, even at a knock-down price. A slight upturn in the housing market might be good news for estate agents, but for the indebted—those really suffering under present policies who can sell their houses only at prices lower than they paid—it might mean the bailiffs.
Hon. Members who do not know what repossession means should read last week's The Sunday Correspondent, which gave a description of one family's experience. A brief extract gives the flavour. It said:
It took 45 seconds for the man to go from homeowner to homeless. He owed £5,455·31 in mortgage arrears: 'This order means the building society can take possession in 28 days. Have you anything to say?' said the registrar…'I lost my job, but I got a new one, but I'm waiting for the first month's wages and then I'll start to…'But the man did not stand a chance.
'Can you pay £500 every month on top of the usual payments?…No? Well they'll have to repossess. Next.
Some hon. Members might be pleased that our judicial system is so efficient that it can deal with an N29 order for repossession in 45 seconds. They might care to reflect on the shame people feel, on their despair and on their futures. We are not unrealistic on these Benches. We do not think that there is a policy that can correct the failure of this Government's economic mismanagement without pain. The problem with the Government's policy is that it does not give anyone hope. People envisage higher mortgage costs carrying on into the distant future. They realise that the Government are divided about what to do.
People should be aware that there are alternatives that would bring hope to home owners, and the House should be aware that there are alternatives that would restore credibility to economic policy. Early membership of the exchange rate mechanism would allow interest rates to fall relatively quickly. If demand began to get out of control, sensible tax reforms would tighten fiscal policy, preventing the need always to resort to high interest rates. The policy would still be painful in the short term, but there would be hope. People would know that the policy was credible and that it would help to bring down interest rates.
While economic policy is put right, the Government could alleviate the problems of the home owner in arrears, whose house is about to be repossessed, through other measures. For example, assistance in debt counselling would not cost a great deal. As the Government's economic mismanagement has caused the crisis, the least that they can do is to help in the provision of advice.
The Government could also tighten control on the misleading advertising of credit. For example, they could extend the Financial Services Act 1986 so that organisations such as FIMBRA could control the actions of its members advertising mortgages in a misleading manner. In that way, investor protection could be extended from the investor in insurance to the investor in

property. Surely it is the Government's job to promote consumer protection, especially in an area as important as the housing market.
The home owners of Britain are not asking for much. Indeed, many of them probably realise that there are many others with far more serious housing difficulties. I do not have time to go into the detail of the many other housing problems facing people in Britain. That is not because the problems are not acute. Other hon. Members have referred to the depth of failure of the Government's housing policy, the consequent rise in homelessness and the poor state of the housing stock.
The warning that I am giving the Government is that the home owner in arrears today could be the homeless person of tomorrow. They must not make the housing problems of everyone else worse by ignoring the plight of the home owner. The crisis is not only at Christmas; it is with us for many years to come.

Sir George Young: Like the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn), I read the moving article in The Sunday Correspondent last week. In my brief remarks I want to take up the theme of homelessness on which the hon. Gentleman and other hon. Members have touched.
Last week, a number of Members on both sides of the House and in both Houses who feel strongly about homelessness formed the all-party parliamentary group on homelessness. We look forward to working with the many organisations whose work in that area we applaud and who have some exciting and fresh ideas to help tackle the problems of homelessness. We also look forward to talking to Ministers and obtaining further details of the £250 million package, an announcement which I greatly welcome.
As joint chairman of that newly formed group, I am interested in solutions and practical help for the people who find themselves homeless, rather than in propaganda. Any strategy for dealing with homelessness must start by sending a clear signal to young people who now have somewhere to live but who are thinking of coming to London, or another city, in search of their fortune but who have no clear idea of where they would stay. I hate to cross swords with my right hon. Friend the Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) but the message for them must be, "Don't get on your bike. Don't come to London in search of work unless you have somewhere to live, because if you find a job you will not be able to hold it down unless you have somewhere permanent to stay."
I welcome all the initiatives that are being taken, but we must not weaken the strong signal to young people that the situation in the capital is desperate and that they should not chance their arm and come here on the offchance of finding somewhere because the chances are that they will not.
I want to make two points on the theme of homelessness. The first concerns the tenants incentive scheme. Part of the solution for homelessness in London must be to look at those who are now living in London who neither have to nor want to do so, but who cannot afford to move out—people who may have retired or have children living in other parts of the country and who are


local authority tenants. The tenants incentive scheme gives them the opportunity to own their own homes, to move out of the capital and to be near their families.
The advantages of the tenants incentive scheme is that it is quick; it provides relets without having to build fresh accommodation which can take two years. Not only is it quick, but it is a cost-effective way of getting relets without spending the £80,000 or £100,000 that it would cost to build a new flat. If one gave a dramatic and enthusiastic push to the tenants incentive scheme in London, every family now in bed and breakfast could be out within 12 months. Therefore, I ask Ministers to look again at that scheme to see whether its full potential is being achieved and whether one could put fresh steam behind it to free accommodation and get families out of bed and breakfast accommodation.
My second point relates to planning, but it impinges directly on the problems of homelessness. There is a shortage of houses in the south-east and that is why we have a problem of homelessness. Even if we do all that we can to encourage local authorities to let property that is empty, to encourage the private rented sector to bring back into use property that is unlet and make full use of derelict land, there will still be a shortage of homes in the south-east for those who are already living here. It is nonsense to say that we should let the market work and let prices in the south-east rise so that people find accommodation in the north-east or elsewhere. That is not a practical solution. It means that nurses, teachers, postmen or bus drivers could not afford to live in the south-east, and that would lead to unbalanced communities. Part of any strategy for dealing with the housing shortage and homelessness is to increase the supply of homes in the south-east.
I welcome the solution of new villages or new settlements which provide the opportunity to build new balanced communities with accommodation for rent and for sale, but I am slightly disappointed at the lack of progress that has been made by new settlements or new villages in the past few months. There have been some disappointing decisions on appeal and I hope that next year the Government will look again at the new settlement approach to the housing shortage in the south-east to see whether that should form part of the solution.
The Government need not be ashamed of their housing record. If the Labour party had achieved what the Government have achieved over the past 10 years, bearing in mind the disappointing last three years of the Labour Government, it would be well satisfied.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) rightly referred to the number of people with housing problems who present themselves at Members' advice bureaux, particularly those of London Members. But a variety of solutions are now available that simply were not on offer 10 years ago—solutions such as shared ownership; low-cost home ownership; the revival of the private rented sector, which was dying on its feet 10 years ago; the priority estates project, bringing back into use council estates that were impossible to let; the housing association movement borrowing fresh funds from the City, adding to the resources made available to it by the Government. The picture painted by the hon. Member for Dagenham was incomplete. I commend the Government on their ingenuity, initiative and determination in improving the housing conditions of people in Britain.

Ms. Kate Hoey: I am pleased that this debate is taking place today. As a new Member, I may not yet understand the nuances of the House, but it is rather disturbing that the Benches of the House were filled for yesterday's emotional and important debate and yet they are relatively empty today when we are discussing a matter of major importance to the British people. Perhaps we all share some blame for the fact that housing has not become a crusade in Britain.
I want to talk a little about the impact of high mortgage rates on London in particular. If anything good can come out of high mortgage rate, it is that it has at least brought the shortage of housing and the importance of that to the attention of many of thousands of people who until now may not have seen that as a problem.
Londoners are particularly affected by the increase in mortgage rates, because London has the highest house prices in the country. The average home in the capital costs just below £100,000, while the national average is a little above £60,000. Average incomes in London are above the national average, but they do not exceed them to that extent. The size of London's economy and its continuing buoyancy compared with other areas mean that demand for housing remains high and prices are determined by what a small section of the population can afford, leaving the rest to struggle with high bills.
Therefore, it is not surprising that, although some 600 home owners in London have become homeless during the past year, the increase has not been so great in the rest of the country. Until now, the relatively low rate in London has been due to the booming housing market. Many people who have got into trouble with repayments could still sell at a profit and buy elsewhere. With the collapse of the housing market many people will not now be able to do that. Therefore, we are seeing only the tip of the iceberg in terms of homelessness which has resulted from people not being able to afford their mortgages.
It is worth pointing out what a daunting task now faces the first-time buyer in London trying to get on the first rung of the housing ladder. The average mortgage advance for first-time buyers in London is now £70,000. With present interest rates, that means repayments of approximately £850 a month. The Government have told us that high interest rates will continue until such time as they can be cut. Therefore, we may be facing high increases in mortgage rates, and that will mean that more people in London face having to get rid of their homes. As we heard in the moving account in The Sunday Correspondent, they will be forced to go through the stigmatising process of having to sell their home or having it taken from them.
I share the sentiments expressed earlier about the availability of tax relief for people who wish to buy homes together. The change in August 1988 cut off a further avenue for young people and is to be regretted. There are alternatives to buying in London, but renting from private landlords is expensive, the accommodation is hard to find, and the security is poor. Due to the complete collapse of local authority new home building and the sale of over 120,000 London council homes since 1979, councils now have far fewer lettings. We have already heard that housing associations are currently starting fewer homes in London than in the 1970s, so councils and local housing associations are overwhelmed with meeting the needs of the homeless.
Despite an average of over 60 per cent. of council lettings going to the homeless in London—over half as many again as in the rest of the country—there are now 25,000 homeless households in temporary accommodation in London. That would be the equivalent of a sizeable town such as Stevenage.
Some hon. Members may have seen in a newspaper this week an article on a person in my constituency who was homeless and begging. Attempts were made to prove that he had money and to show that he was not genuinely homeless. The attack was particularly sad. If those reporters had walked through the Bull Ring and spoken to people—although I doubt if many from the newspaper involved would dare to—they would have discovered the type of people who are homeless. It is important to point out that one cannot classify "homeless people" as just one category. Every homeless person is an individual with particular needs, problems and reasons for becoming homeless.
The "Skipper" is one of the projects from the north Lambeth day centre which is involved with homeless people. The centre is an education project where many young people can go to obtain advice and to practise, learn and improve their writing skills to help them obtain a job. An average young person who visited the north Lambeth day centre said:
From June 1989 to September 1989 I had no money because I'd lost my YTS place and my bridging loan had run out. I went to the DSS in September because I had nowhere to live and was under 18, they wouldn't give me any money. I felt like they didn't want to know and didn't care. I tried to get work and told them this but they made me feel as if I was lying. Eventually I went to the Council who found me a room in a hostel. I had somewhere to live so I went to the DSS expecting money. I was given a £6 crisis loan which was to last two weeks. I was only given this because I was in 'Severe Hardship' and would eventually get Income Support because of this. This meant I had to live for 14 days on £6. I went again three days later and was told I wasn't entitled to anything else. Luckily the hostel lent me £4 for food and a social services worker obtained £20 from the Salvation Army for me.
In this edition of "Skipper" there are other letters from homeless people who are lucky enough to have the benefit of the people working at the centre. That example shows how false it is for anyone to try to say that all the homeless —or a substantial number—are simply people who have left home and could return.
If I look around my constituency I see people who are living in inadequate housing, perhaps on the seventh floor of a tower block, in great overcrowding and in conditions with an enormous amount of damp or where the flat is obviously in disrepair. Are we saying to those people that they are adequately housed and that they have a home and there is no problem?
The definition of "homelessness" should be widened to include people who do not live in decent surroundings or an environment likely to improve their well-being and health. Such places cannot be called a home. In some ways, our narrow definition of homelessness excludes the many thousands of people who are living in appalling conditions and who have little chance—in my constituency—of being rehoused' One in 10 households in my borough suffers from extreme overcrowding. They have no chance of finding anywhere decent to live. There is no point saying to them, as the Government would, "Why don't you try to buy?" First, they would not want to buy the flat in which

they are living because it usually needs an enormous amount of work and money spent on it. Secondly, they would have no chance of obtaining a mortgage.
There are many myths about homelessness and housing, and one of the saddest things is that it has not become a crusading issue. All hon. Members rightly feel passionately about the National Health Service, but unless one is suffering directly from a housing problem, it does not reach the top of the agenda. However, at Christmas it does and over the next couple of weeks we will probably see many sad articles in the press about homelessness. But as the hon. Member for Southport (Mr. Fearn) rightly pointed out, after Christmas the problem will still exist.
I hope that this Opposition day debate will mark the beginning of an increase in awareness—not just in the House but in the country—of the state of housing and how dire it is. There must be choice of housing but, under Government policies, only a tiny percentage of the population have real choice. I hope that today we will show that everyone has a responsibility. People in the country who are well housed and have no problems have a responsibility to raise the issue of homelessness with their Members of Parliament. They should bring it to the forefront, so that, by the end of next year, we will be able to say that something has been done about housing. In London, the position is already dire as we cannot get nurses, teachers, or people to staff buses or transport. The basic reason for that is that people can no longer obtain housing in London or live in a safe environment where they are happy and contented.
We must see the problem of homelessness as crucial, and we must develop housing throughout the country but particularly in London. We must see it as a major problem that will engulf us in a year or two if something is not done quickly.

Mr. Douglas French: The motion moved by the Opposition "condemns", "deplores", "warns" and "deplores" again. However, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Minister made clear, it does not propose any sound solutions.
The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) called for a "fundamental reappraisal" and "reversal of mistakes", but when pressed to come up with details of Opposition policies he made a feature of not presenting any for fear that they might be scrutinised.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) called for more choice. In the last 10 years, the Conservative Government, to a greater extent than any previous Administration, have endeavoured to provide genuine housing choice.

Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will my hon. Friend defend that statement in the light of the Government amendment to the motion, which does not even mention choice?

Mr. French: It mentions the right-to-buy, which provides choice for people who might not otherwise have it.
It is a pity that Opposition Members have not acknowledged the extent to which the Government have sought to provide additional opportunities for people to purchase their own homes, in particular for council tenants through the right-to-buy legislation. That has brought within the grasp of many who otherwise would


have been unable to contemplate it both the possibility and the reality of owning the house or flat in which they live. From time to time the Labour party has been slightly more enthusiastic about that policy, but is has never been very keen to endorse it.
Those who have exercised their right-to-buy have, in my experience, almost always been pleased to have done so. In recent years the scheme has been improved. There are better discounts and the range of properties within the ambit of the scheme has been extended. Since 1979, more than 1 million houses and flats have been sold through the right-to-buy scheme. That is an impressive figure, but it still means that the scheme has been only a qualified success. Only one fifth of the properties which might have been purchased in this way have been bought. Since it represents the bargain of a lifetime for those who decide to take up the option, it is worth asking why it is that approximately 14 local authorities have sold only about 10 per cent. of their local authority housing stock. In contrast, those who have done well have sold about 35 per cent., but even that does not represent a very impressive percentage.
It is absolutely clear that the success or failure of the right-to-buy scheme in particular areas and at particular times has no connection whatever with interest rate levels. In the last year, the number of flats purchased through the right-to-buy scheme—just under 27,000—has been the highest ever. That coincided with a period of admittedly high interest rates, but they have not deterred people from exercising their right to buy.
Even at times of high interest rates, it is both desirable and possible that people should still wish to become home owners. For some of them, the arithmetic may look daunting, but even within normal or very low household budgets it is still perfectly possible for people to exercise their right to buy. Nevertheless, the time has come when the scheme should be boosted. I therefore welcome the Government experiment known as the rents into mortgages scheme, which provides an important alternative means of purchasing one's home and additional choice for prospective purchasers.
There have been two experiments. The first was announced on 30 October by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and applies to houses and flats owned by Scottish Homes. The second experiment, known as flexi-ownership, was announced in September by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales and applies to the 1,350 houses and flats owned by the Development Board for Rural Wales. In both cases, the system enables tenants to buy their homes for broadly the same weekly outlay as they currently pay in rent.
The system combines a discount entitlement with a mortgage and a deferred loan but, unlike many low-start schemes, it does not depend on an increasing burden of accumulating interest. It satisfies the deferred loan from the proceeds of the eventual sale of the property, but the cost of the deferred loan facility is calculated by reference to a proportion of the capital gain which has accrued in the intervening period. To that extent it has the characteristics of a shared ownership scheme, but there is no proper shared ownership.
It is worth examining the arithmetic of such a scheme, since it is not widely understood. In both cases, the starting point is the rent currently being paid by the tenant. To that rent, for calculation purposes, 10 per cent. is added. Then £5 in the case of a house, or £7·50 in the case of a flat, is

deducted from it as a notional allowance for the insurance and maintenance costs that the new owner will have to bear. Taking the average rent in Wales, which is £21·84, if one adds 10 per cent. and deducts £5, that leaves £19·02. That is the amount which the prospective purchaser would have to pay each week under the rents into morgages scheme. The amount of low-start mortgage that £19·02 will buy is the figure that the tenant pays for his purchase. But that is not enough to cover the entire cost: the difference between that amount and the market value of the house is met, first, by the discount and, secondly, by a deferred loan.
An important feature of the scheme is that the discount is 15 per centage points less than the discount that is applied in the right-to-buy scheme. If it were otherwise, the introduction of such a scheme might be less than welcomed by those who have already exercised their right-to-buy under the existing scheme. Discounts under the rents into mortgages scheme start at 17 per cent. for houses and 29 per cent. for flats. They rise to 45 per cent. for houses and 55 per cent. for flats, which is 15 per cent. lower than the maximum that is available under the right-to-buy scheme.
The important distinction, apart from the discount differential, is that even after the purchase has been made, eligibility for discount continues to accrue at 1 per cent. per year in respect of the calculation of the deferred loan that later has to be repaid, subject to the maximum percentages. When the time comes to sell the property, the deferred loan is the amount represented by the original percentage, as applied to the sale price, less the additional discount which has accrued at 1 per cent. per year.
By means of that ingenious formula, the loan is repaid, the mortgage is repaid and the purchaser—who now becomes the seller—is left with a significant capital gain, the amount of which will depend on house price inflation in the intervening period. It is not a dream or a nightmare, as the hon. Member for Dagenham suggests; it is a painless way of achieving home ownership.
My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment wrote to me on 2 November 1989. In his letter he said that the Government had no plans at present to extend the rents into mortgages scheme beyond the two experiments in Wales and Scotland. He confirmed that they are trial experiments for three years and that they will be monitored and evaluated. However, in the 30 days from 30 October to 30 November, at a time of high interest rates, the number of inquiries in Scotland about the scheme amounted to 360. That is a sign that it will be enormously successful—and so it should be because it is extremely attractive. It would be even more successful if it were heavily promoted. Once the early part of the experiment is concluded, I see no reason why it should be necessary to wait three years before the scheme is promoted nationally. It should be promoted for the excellent scheme that it is, and should apply to all local authority tenants in all parts of the country—or, if that is not possible, particularly where there are housing pressures. I should like it to apply in my own constituency of Gloucester. It is an ingenious and a winning formula and I very much hope that the Government will decide to extend it nationally.

Mr. David Winnick: As my hon. Friend the Member for Knowsley, North (Mr. Howarth) pointed out, it is not surprising that the Government amendment makes no mention of rented accommodation. Basically, it is a problem or a crisis in which the Government take no interest. It is also not surprising that the Government amendment does not boast about the provision of private sector rented accommodation. Had the Housing Act worked in the way in which the Government predicted, they would now be telling us about all the private sector rented accommodation that had been provided through shorthold and shorthold assured tenancies.
In the past few days, I have tried to find out what the position is. I have tabled questions to the Department of the Environment and I have been to the Library where they were good enough to ring up a number of organisations concerned with housing, but hardly any information is available. The general consensus among organisations concerned with housing is that the number of new dwellings available in the private sector as a result of the Housing Act 1988 has been derisory, as Labour Members constantly warned when the legislation was going through the House. The new accommodation that has been provided here and there has been mainly in the high rented sector, and of course that is of no use to the vast majority of our constituents.
I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). When people go to his surgery, as they come to mine, and tell him about their acute housing plight I wonder whether he gives them the lecture that he has just given the House.
At present, this country has the largest number of homeless people since the end of the war. Tonight only five minutes from here people will make their homes in cardboard boxes as they have on previous nights, and will in future. A few nights ago, I went to see what was happening outside Embankment station. Any hon. Member who thinks that I am exaggerating should go along there. It is a disgrace that so many people should be living in those conditions in an advanced industrialised country, whatever our economic problems. Many of them do not have drink or drugs problems. Many are perfectly law-abiding citizens who have come to London and simply cannot find accommodation. The Evening Standard provides information about rented accommodation at £150, £200 and £250 per week. What use is that to people coming to London who may find a job paying a modest wage? They will not be able to afford to buy, and nor will they be able to afford rented accommodation. The lectures from the hon. Member for Gloucester are no help to the people who will sleep outside Embankment station tonight. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman would like to go there tonight after the 10 pm vote and lecture those people about the schemes he has mentioned. I am willing to accompany him.
The crisis is not just among the homeless. My hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) said that most people who come to see him have housing problems. Surely that is true for most of us. At least 65 or 70 per cent. of those who come to my regular constituency surgeries or write to me are concerned about housing problems. Because of deliberate Government policy, and not because of the failure by the local authority, my own council has

been able to undertake no housebuilding at all in the past 10 years. Of course, as the Government constantly boast, the public rented sector has been substantially reduced. But what should I say to a couple with two children who could wait for years in a small flat? One can imagine what it is like for a mother with two small children in a small flat in a multi-storey block who goes almost daily to the local housing office trying to find a house. People with no children have hardly any chance of finding accommodation; if they have one child they wait a long time to be rehoused from a flat to a house and more recently even families with two children can wait literally for years. All they want is a house. They cannot afford to buy and they certainly cannot afford any of the schemes mentioned by the hon. Member for Gloucester. What is their crime? Why should they be penalised day in and day out because their income is low?
I accept entirely that the majority of people in Britain want to own their own homes. I do not deplore that; I own my own home, or at least I am buying it through a building society. If it is good enough for us, of course other people should have the same opportunity. I do not deplore the fact that the majority of people want to own their own homes. If Tory Members really believe their propaganda that Labour Members are against owner-occupation, so be it. But we have never been against owner-occupation and in many ways we have tried to encourage it through various schemes when we have been in office. But what happens to the people who simply cannot buy? That is the divide between the two sides of the House. We are not divided about whether owner-occupation is good. We accept that and we believe that it should be encouraged. We know, however, only too well the mortgage difficulties faced by so many people who have bought their own homes in the past couple of years as a result of Government policy. We are not divided over the wish that people should buy their own homes if they can. But there is certainly a very big divide about what we should do about more than a quarter of the people in this country —those who need rented accommodation.
The case against the Government is that through sheer dogma and political calculation, which also comes into the picture, they will not allow local authorities to undertake the work that local councils have been doing for most of the century. Even under previous Tory Governments, council dwellings were built in virtually all parts of the country. Now it is virtually impossible. If it is Government policy that local authority dwellings should not be built, they should provide alternatives. But, as I said, the private rented sector does not provide the accommodation which is so necessary, despite the promises made by Ministers when the Housing Act was going through. What should we do when people who could not possibly afford market rents come to see us? Housing benefit, which has been cut so drastically, does not help. Ministers know that. No matter what fine words they may say at the Dispatch Box, Ministers are callously indifferent to the plight of people who are punished and penalised because they are not in a position to buy.
Council rents are also a form of punishment for tenants. In the past 10 years, council rents nationally have been forced up by 234 per cent. compared with an inflation figure of 110 per cent. over the same period. So in effect the Government have told council tenants that if they wish to


continue as tenants they will he penalised. There is certainly no justification for the exorbitant rent increases that have been imposed in the past few years.
It is not surprising that the number of people with rent arrears is increasing. For example, the total income of one widower in my constituency who came to see me is £54 a week. Imagine what it must be like to live on that amount. He pays more than £10 a week in rent. I know that rents have increased and housing benefit has been dramatically reduced, but I could not believe that that man should be paying more than £10 a week in rent out of an income of £54 a week. I checked the amount with my local authority, which is not to blame for it. How could it be to blame? The Government's policy has been to force up council rents while drastically reducing housing benefit.
This country needs a substantial council house building programme. Only local authorities, together with genuine housing associations, can provide the rented accommodation which is so desperately needed. My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) said that there were not many Members in the Chamber, unlike last night. The difference is that last night we were not sure which way the vote would go. As with debates on the death penalty and similar issues, one was not even certain what one's own colleagues would say. Ironically, then, though most constituents write to us about housing problems, there are few Members in the Chamber, whether Tory or Labour. The explanation is quite simple: we know that the Government will not listen. Because of dogma and political calculation, they are not interested in the plight of the people to whom my hon. Friends and I have referred.
When historians look back at these times they will find it difficult to believe that there could be so many people without accommodation, so many people sleeping in the open and countless families in flats who cannot get a house, and a Government and their supporters who are indifferent—there will be no abstentions in the vote tonight—to the plight of the many people who want accommodation but cannot afford to buy a house.

Mr. Edward Leigh: The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) accuses the Government of callousness. The Government will spend £250 million in the next two years on tackling the problem of homelessness in London and the south-east. I do not call that the action of a callous Government. They will spend £20 billion over the next three years in grants and expenditure on housing. I do not call that the action of a callous Government. We do not improve the debate by making such simplistic party political attacks.
To have a serious debate on these issues, we must at least compare alternative strategies. Much of the debate has been artificial. The Government have put forward their view which some may think is wrong headed. The hon. Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) was not prepared to say what the Government-in-waiting—as presumably he considers the Labour party to be—would do about the problem.

Mr. Soley: He did.

Mr. Leigh: I deny that, and Hansard will prove that he did not. I invite the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) to explain what the Labour party would do in the current circumstances. I suspect that he will not.
Two years ago, there was a potential world recession and a stock market crash and it was necessary to have reflation through supply side measures, which inevitably resulted in inflation. The only way to curb inflation is to encourage saving and curb borrowing, which can be done only by increasing interest rates. A Labour Government would have done that, just as this Government have.

Mr. Boyes: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Leigh: I shall not give way. I shall speak briefly so that other hon. Members can participate.
Bringing up a young family and having to pay for property with a mortgage, I suffer as much as anyone from high interest rates. Like all people in my age group who are bringing up young families, I urge the Government to bring down interest rates as soon as possible, but not so soon that it would limit the battle against inflation. Some of us suffer from high interest rates, but everyone suffers from inflation.
We should put the matter into context. Average incomes have increased by £67 a year over the past two years, while the average amount paid on an average mortgage of £22,000 has increased by £58 a year, despite the increase in interest rates. The Building Societies Association has proved that there is little evidential link between high interest rates and the number of repossessions. In the latter part of 1988, the number of repossessions fell to 0·01 per cent. of home loans. Repossessions have more to do with personal financial mismanagement, matrimonial problems or unemployment than with high interest rates. High interest rates are necessary if we are to curb inflation and get the economy running along the right lines.
We must address the problem of housing for young people. I do not believe that the solution advocated by the hon. Member for Walsall, North was right. We must consider the kind of shared purchase schemes which were advocated by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. French). I represent a rural area which traditionally has had low house prices. Young people in the villages in my constituency are finding it increasingly difficult to buy cottages and houses. Such housing is no longer within their price range because of the movement to the area of retired people from the south of England. I do not believe that the solution to the problem is to build more council housing in villages and trap people in rural areas subsidised housing from which they will find it difficult to escape in future years. The solution is to develop shared purchase schemes which will capture the imagination of young people. We may have to require local authorities to enter into such schemes.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: I appreciate the fact that my hon. Friend, like all of us, is worried about high interest rates. He touched on the prices of houses. Are not higher house prices the down side of lower interest rates? Sometimes a person may be in a Catch-22 situation—as interest rates come down, he still finds it difficult to get on to the housing ladder because house prices have increased as a result of low interest rates. That was the position in 1987.

Mr. Leigh: My hon. Friend makes his point. Our economic policies are right and necessary. Much of what must be done in Government is as painful as it is inevitable, but it must be done.
In our next legislative programme, we must look much more closely at shared purchase schemes and the private rented sector. We have been successful with assured tenancies and shorthold tenancies. Although I am sure that we will not get the Opposition's agreement, we must look at freeing the private rented sector for all future tenancies. The only way to address the problem of homelessness and to help young people, especially in inner-city areas, is to free the enormous supply of private rented accommodation. Such accommodation exists in under-occupied buildings, yet people do not have the confidence, ability or determination to put rooms in their houses on the market and may not be encouraged to do so. With shared purchase schemes, we can start to address the problem of homelessness among the young people in our great cities.

Mr. John Fraser: I cannot express how much I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) about the necessity to provide more homes for rent through building by local authorities and—I think that my hon. Friend would agree —housing associations. I listened carefully to the hon. Members for Gloucester (Mr. French) and for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh). It does not seem to occur to Conservative Members that the great transition which has occurred as many tenants have moved to owner-occupation, because of the opportunity to buy on favourable terms and at discounts, was made possible only because of the efforts over the century of local authorities to build homes which were initially for rent. It is only the investment that took place year after year which has now made possible the transition from tenancy to owner-occupation, which most of us welcome. We should welcome it in the inner cities if only houses were replaced or there was an alternative, such as a transferable discount scheme. There is no contradiction between large-scale building for renting and owner-occupation on favourable terms at a later stage. The two are not incompatible.
I represent Lambeth, an inner-city area, which has considerable problems. It is fair to say that, when I was first elected, the single outstanding domestic problem— because unemployment was virtually unknown and unmeasurable in Lambeth then—was housing. Sadly, that problem has not gone away, although it has been joined by the problems of major unemployment and inner-city deprivation. It is to my deep regret and to the deep shame of the present Government that the housing problem, which was showing signs of improvement in terms of tenure, space standards and repairs, has been getting worse, not as a result of some act of fate, but as a direct consequence of Government policy.
What has happened in the past few years, and especially in the past year, has been critical for the more recent home buyers, who must now despair about where the money will come from after each interest rate rise. The position is also critical for thousands of people for whom the idea of buying a home is either an unattainable dream or a sick joke. The present cost of buying property will rule them out of the market in places such as Lambeth.
I shall give an illustration of my local prices. This morning, I went through every housing advertisement in the local paper, which is a south London newspaper covering Wandsworth and Lambeth. I tried to find out what was the cheapest property available for purchase in the area. The cheapest price for a one-bedroom conversion was £54,500, which was not the typical price. The usual price for one-bedroomed accommodation in the area, which is not the most salubrious part of London, is £60,000 to £65,000.
Let us consider the cheapest cost, of about £55,000. If one obtains a mortgage at 13·5 per cent., which is under the Government's present base rate, and excludes all policy costs, service charges and ground rent, the interest repayments alone for the cheapest south London house in the newspaper today would be £534 a month, or £6,408 a year. In addition, of course, there would be the costs of fares to work, of the repayment of capital and of insurance.
Nobody who is earning less than about £18,000 a year net would be able to afford, with any prudence, such a mortgage. Who would enter into a commitment in which the outgoings on the mortgage would be more than one third of net income? I know that some people exceed one third of net income, but it is not prudent when one thinks of the other commitments and other expenditure that are associated with a house, such as repairs and insurance.
I represent a constituency where the wages for the middle income group are relatively low. People may be doing useful jobs in London, but they are not highly paid jobs and, for most people, the purchase of the cheapest possible one-bedroom flat, which would not be suitable for somebody who had children, is simply out of the question. For a family with children, the price of a home would not be the minimum of £55,000, but about £75,000 or £80,000. For a first-time buyer in my area, mortgage repayments for such a property would be proportionately higher, running to perhaps £8,000, £9,000 or £10,000 a year. The idea that the people who come to see my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Ms. Hoey) or me at our advice bureaux will be able to buy a home on the figures that I have quoted is unrealistic, especially as another mortgage rate rise is still in the pipeline.
What is the next choice for people which is urged on us? It is to go into the private rented sector. I looked in the South London Press, which has a good list of properties available to let under the new regime, to see whether renting might be possible. In Streatham, there was accommodation that would be suitable for a family with children:
3-bedroom flat…can suit ¾ people. £140 p. w.
That is a rental of £7,000 a year. Yet I am talking about people who will go home with a net disposable income in some cases of only about £8,000 to £10,000 a year.
I think of a nursery nurse, who works with a member of my family, and who comes regularly to my advice bureau. She has a child to look after and, although she has worked all her life, her income is only about £800 a month net, which is about £10,000 a year. She dearly wants to move out of the one-bedroom flat in which she has to share a bedroom with her child into a two-bedroom property, which would give a bit more privacy. In Lambeth, she would have to pay £7,000 a year in rent according to the example that I have given.
To show that that is not an exaggerated figure, I can give plenty of others. For a one-bedroom flat—which


would be no good for my constituent because she has a child—in Mitcham, which is some way out of the centre, the cost would be £4,500 a year. If she wanted to rent a two-bedroom flat in Brockley, which is not all that posh, she would have to pay £6,000 a year, and on top of that there would be rates, repairs and service charges. I could go through the figures of the premises that are available to rent in south London. The typical figure for a room is between £45 and £60 a week. Another advertisement says:
SE15, Double &amp; Single Rooms…From £40 p. w.
There is no choice for someone with the typical net income of people doing public service work—even relatively highly paid public service work—in constituencies such as mine.
The third theoretical choice—and this is slightly to bend the meaning of the word "choice"—for someone in housing need who wants better or larger accommodation is to go to the local authority or to a housing association, bearing in mind that most housing association vacancies are nominated by the local authority. However, the depth of the cuts over the past 10 years in the housing investment programmes and the extent of homelessness in London mean that virtually no families without children and virtually no families who are not in priority need of housing will be able to be housed by the local authority.
Housing investment has declined. Let us consider the forecast completions for Lambeth over the next three years. In the current year, Lambeth expects to complete 165 homes. It expects to complete 120 homes in the following year and 87 homes in 1991–92. That is the consequence of the catastrophic investment programme which has been imposed by the present Government.
High mortgage costs, high house prices, high rents and the almost total inability to obtain a house by normal means through the local authority mean that in Lambeth we face a devastating problem of homelessness. In 1987, just after the general election, there were 430 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in Lambeth borough. On 10 December this year there were 1,177 families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation—almost three times as many as there were two years ago—and that is in spite of all the efforts that have been made to solve the problem of homelessness by other means.
In addition to the trebling of the number of homeless families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, the number of private sector leasing arrangements—one way in which Lambeth borough council has responded—has increased to 493. We now have more people housed under private sector leasing arrangements than we had homeless people three years ago. We have 137 people in reception centres, 89 people in short-life accommodation and five people in furnished voids, giving a total figure of 1,918 homeless families. I am told that the cost to public funds of keeping one mother and child in bed-and-breakfast accommodation in London is now £10,000 a year. It is easy to calculate the enormous costs incurred in boroughs such as mine.
It is not getting any easier. As the pressure of interest rates builds, and as rents in the public and private sectors continue to rise, the problem worsens. Between 70 and 80 families a week present themselves as homeless, and 600 cases are being considered at the moment.
Hyperbole begins to lose its meaning. I begin to despair as to how anyone is ever housed. I am deeply angry, because it is not as though the predicament in which the homeless find themselves is an accident, as though their

needs are unavoidable or their deprivation inevitable. Their homelessness is the direct consequence of Government policies and Government lack of investment.
The tragedy is that the problem could be solved. People in London—especially developers—are finding it difficult to sell houses at the moment. In the docklands area, for example, many houses remain unsold when they are completed or in the course of construction. In the docklands area, land prices are higher than construction costs as a result of Government policy. It would be possible to release the massive amounts of money that are available to buy those properties for rent and eventually to facilitate the transition from renting to owner-occupation of which we have spoken tonight.

Mr. Hugo Summerson: I should like to begin with two anecdotes. The other day, I was cycling along Knightsbridge and a man at a bus stop stopped me. I thought for a moment that he was going to ask for a lift. In fact, what he asked for was money. He said that he had been robbed and did not have any money left for his train fare home. Being of a naturally soft-hearted disposition, and perhaps in this case rather foolish, I gave him some money, whereupon honesty broke out across his face and he told me, "Actually, I'm going to take it to the nearest pub and drink it."
The second story is the one that we saw in the Evening Standard the other day. It concerns a young man who makes an extremely good living standing outside a tube station with one of those notices round his neck saying, "Homeless and starving". He makes about £600 a week, tax free.
I tell those stories not to trivialise the subject—because homelessness is a very serious problem in London—but because I believe that we must regard it with extreme care. We have to sort the wheat from the chaff. The wheat can look after itself perfectly well, but the chaff obviously needs help and that is why the Government are making £250 million available to attempt to solve the problem.
Before I was elected to this place, I used to practise as a fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, and as part of my job I used to look in auction catalogues to see what sort of property was coming on to the market. In all the catalogues, there were hundreds of tenanted houses and flats coming up for sale. The reason why they were being sold was that over the years the private rented market has been destroyed by legislation, largely passed by the Labour party. Bearing in mind that Labour legislation, no landlord would take the risk of letting an empty property when he knew perfectly well, first, that the rent would be controlled to the extent that he could not even maintain the property out of it and, secondly, that the sitting tenant and the tenant's successors to two or three generations might have security of tenure. I hope that the Government's policies will put that right, but I am afraid that it will take a long time.
Should the ratepayers subsidise council rents? I do not believe that they should. I believe that council tenants who cannot pay their rent should be helped, but if one asked the average ratepayer in my constituency—not exactly the richest part of London—whether he thinks that he should give a blanket subsidy to all council tenants, one would get a dusty answer.
What about the right to buy? My council, the London borough of Waltham Forest, complains, like many Labour councils, about the controls on spending capital receipts. Yet my council will not push through sales under the right-to-buy provisions. The council cannot have it both ways. If it will not push through the sales, why on earth should it complain that it is allowed to spend only 25 per cent. of its capital receipts? Moreover, it takes some time to build houses. One cannot put up a house overnight. It takes months to get planning permission and months to do the building work.
Many councils have great assets in the shape of commercial properties. My own council has a rent roll of about £1 million a year from commercial properties. But when I asked, "What exactly are these properties valued at?" I discovered that the council has not a clue what the capital values of the properties are. Surely the council could sell some of those properties and apply the proceeds elsewhere, but that is a point that many councils simply have not taken on board. Look at the GLC, which owned thousands of commercial properties and did not bother to review the rents for years and years. The London residuary body has been selling some of the properties and it has become clear that some rents have not been reviewed for 20 years. Some authorities have had no idea of how to look after their properties.
I come now to housing action trusts. It is proposed that there should be a housing action trust in my constituency. I know that some Labour Members are not in favour of housing action trusts. I hope that they will make the journey out to Walthamstow to the Boundary road estate and say to the tenants there, "We do not approve of housing action trusts. We do not like the idea that the Government might actually pay to knock down these three horrendous tower blocks and replace them with decent housing." They might also say, "We approved of the scheme of the London borough of Waltham Forest to replace those blocks which would have meant an increase of £15 a week in the rents of all council tenants in the borough."
I see that the hon. Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) is shifting anxiously in his place, so let me finish by asking exactly where all the new houses of which the Labour party speaks so grandly are to be built. London is a mature city and has been a mature city for hundreds of years, so where are the houses to be built? Are they to be built, perhaps, in Old Dagenham park? I am sure that the hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) would be only too keen to assure his constituents that Ravenscourt park will not be built on, and that we do not want to build in Hyde park or in the green belt.
I hope that Opposition Members would not advocate a return to the building of tower blocks, which to my mind represent one of the most horrendous forms of housing ever devised. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) is laughing. Perhaps he would like to tell his constituents that he is all in favour of building tower blocks. To my mind, they breed hopelessness and despair. I am sure that they breed unemployment and I believe that they also breed housing problems because they breed social problems. Many people leave home because they cannot bear to live there any longer.
Obviously the answer is to pull them down and replace them with the sort of housing that was there before—traditional terraced houses with gardens. That is what people want, and I believe that we should provide it.

Mr. Tony Banks: I thank you for calling me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I will see you afterwards.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) has a charming and disarming way of addressing the House. It is no wonder that he was voted the most romantic Member of Parliament. He told us an anecdote. As he is the Member for Walthamstow, what was he doing cycling through Knightsbridge? He did not tell us. If he spent more time cycling through Walthamstow, he would see more of the problems facing his constituents.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow even comes to the House looking like Neville Chamberlain's private secretary. Many of his views hark back to those days, and I shall touch on some of them.
Personal anecdotes are no way to solve London's massive housing crisis. The hon. Member for Walthamstow asked why local authorities could not use the commercial opportunities represented by their land holdings and assets. They cannot do that, because the Government will not let them: it is as simple as that.
The hon. Gentleman should learn something more about capital receipts and the restrictions that have been placed on their use by central Government, in particular by the Housing Act 1988. He should know that that Act prevents more than 20 per cent. of receipts from the sale of council houses being used to build in the first year. The rest has to go towards the reduction of debts. At least in the past the whole 100 per cent. trickled through. Now it does not and some £8 billion of accumulated capital receipts cannot be used.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow wanted to find out why local councils are unable to use accumulated capital receipts, and why they do not release some of their assets. He should have asked why the Government that he supports will not allow them to use those receipts to reduce housing waiting lists, by building new homes.
I do not want to hear any lessons from the hon. Member for Walthamstow, who peripatetically cycles through Knightsbridge, about the problems of tower blocks. Newham has 110 tower blocks—the largest concentration in the country. Members of Parliament for Newham represent more constituents who live above the tenth floor than is the case in any other borough, or any other three hon. Members. Even though they live above the tenth floor, their feet are firmly on the ground.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the vast majority of them do not want to live in tower blocks, but what can we do? The hon. Gentleman suggested the attractive idea of knocking them all down and building nice little town houses. We would like to do that. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will use his good offices with his Front Bench to allow us to do that in Newham.

Mrs. Teresa Gorman: rose—

Mr. Banks: I will give way to my good friend, or rather, to my acquaintance.

Mrs. Gorman: I thank my hon. Friend and acquaintance for giving way. Is he not aware that in


Wandsworth ugly tower blocks have been made into desirable residences by selling them off to young people in the private sector? Now they are lovely.

Mr. Banks: I agree that they may be desirable residences for those people who earn six-figure sums, but those flats are selling for £100,000. What good is that to homeless people living in Wandsworth? Of course that can be done. Most luxury hotels are tower blocks but conditions in them are nothing like the conditions found in tower blocks in Newham. The hon. Lady, despite her red dress, should be more practical when she expresses her views to the House.
The situation is fairly clear. The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh), who is not in his seat at the moment, said that people get into problems with mortgage arrears because they cannot manage financially, that they mismanage, and that that may result from the family breaking up.
Someone who had an average mortgage advance in London in spring 1988, when interest rates were 9·5 per cent., paid £520 a month. Now, with interest rates at 14·5 per cent., the same home owner is paying £740, a difference of £220, or a 42 per cent. rise. That is not mismanagement by the individual householder, but mismanagement of the economy by the Government and that has caused the ludicrous rate of interest that is now being imposed on home owners and on businesses. That is why people find it difficult to meet their mortgage repayments.
It is not broken marriages that lead to difficulty in paying the mortgage, but difficulty in paying the mortgage that leads to broken marriages. I know that from the personal experiences of some of my constituents, and not, I hasten to add, from my own experience.
My hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (Mr. Winnick) also gave a good description of the situation that we have had to face at our surgeries. We have not made it up. The Minister tried to suggest that my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) had made it up. Somehow, we had created a problem that does not exist except in our vivid imaginations, but the reality is there every day in our offices, and every week in our advice surgeries. People come in and break down crying, "What are we going to do?" All we can do is offer them a tissue and a shoulder to cry on; local authorities cannot solve their problems because of the restrictions placed on house building by the Government.
How has the problem arisen? One does not need a PhD in housing administration to work out why homelessness has doubled since 1979, when that wretched party was first elected to government. It has doubled because the housing investment programme has been slashed by almost 100 per cent.—I think by about 70 to 80 per cent. in real terms.
Ten years ago, Tory and Labour local authorities in London were building 25,000 accommodation units a year. Now they are building around 2,000. That is where the housing problem comes from—the failure of the Government to allow local authorities to use their own resources to try to solve their housing problems.
I could get exceedingly angry, and I regularly do get angry, when I am confronted with problems that I cannot solve. The only way those problems can be solved is to get rid of this wretched Tory Government and get a Labour Government elected who are committed to doing something about the scandal of homelessness in Britain.
In 1989, despite 10 years of Government economic ineptitude that has reduced us to a sideline position in Europe, we are still one of the most prosperous countries in the world. Yet people are sleeping in cardboard boxes a few yards from this place, and thousands of families are living in bed-and-breakfast accommodation, with all that that means in human misery. It is a scandal that should be hung round the necks of the Government until they are booted from office. Homelessness is one of the issues that will ensure that we get rid of them.

Mr. Clive Soley: When a Minister gets the kind of reception at the Dispatch Box at the beginning of a debate that the Minister for Housing and Planning got today, it is normally because people feel angry or because the Minister is not dealing with the issues seriously and in depth. Today both situations apply. Hon. Members are justifiably angry, and people right across the board are angry about the growing housing crisis in Britain.
The Minister does not have a good case, and that was why there was such a vacuum in his speech, and why there is a vacuum in Government policy. That is why we do not have a proper housing Minister. The Minister spends most of his time privatisating water and his junior spends most of his time privatising the Property Services Agency. Housing is a second-rate issue for them. For the welfare of thousands of people throughout the country, however, it is vital.
The Government have gone seriously wrong. I must tell the Minister and other Conservative Members who have spoken that Labour is not alone in accusing them of having a disastrous policy; nor are housing organisations alone in accusing them of having a disastrous policy.
When the Minister criticised, or rather tried but failed to criticise, my hon. Friend the Member for Dagenham (Mr. Gould) about the state of repair of the housing stock, he ignored a report produced by the Conservative-controlled Association of District Councils, which could not have put it more clearly when it said:
But neither of these estimates take into account the need for resources to tackle additional dwellings falling into disrepair in the private sector or the further deterioration, while awaiting attention, of stock already in poor condition. It is therefore clear that at the current level of public expenditure the bulk of the stock condition problem cannot be tackled within the next decade.
The ADC called for an increase of a minimum of £35 billion, although the upper end of its proposed scale was £50 billion. Its view is seconded by the Conservative-controlled London Boroughs Association and most Conservative councils throughout the country.
On what is the Government's reputation built? They came up with one or two policies in 1974 which, stupidly, they have stuck to. They said of helping first-time buyers:
The first part of our programme for doing this is to reduce the interest rate charged by building societies to home buyers to 9½ per cent. and ensure that it does not rise above that figure…Our second proposal is to give first-time purchasers of private houses or flats special help in paying the deposit.
In 1979, they backed off a bit from saying that they would keep mortgage interest so low. They were not specific but, when it came to it, the first thing that they did, in November 1979, was to increase the mortgage interest rate from 11 to 15 per cent. On only two short occasions during


the past 10 years has the mortgage interest rate been below 10 per cent. That is a measure of the Government's economic policy failure.
The hon Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi), who was the Conservative spokesman on housing at the time, said just before the general election:
as soon as we are in office we shall introduce a scheme that we announced not just today but as long ago as three and half years ago.
Under that scheme, the first-time buyer will receive a tax-free bonus of £ 1 for every £2 saved. Therefore, if he saves only £300, he will receive a bonus of £150 when he buys his house".—[Official Report, 20 February 1978; Vol. 944, c. 1047.]
The hon. Gentleman spelt the scheme out in more detail. Neither of those promises was kept. They were both clearly broken.
The Prime Minister said in 1980:
I recognise that the Government are borrowing too much. The interesting correlation is that when the Government borrow less…interest rates go down. I shall be delighted to have the support of the right hon. Gentleman"—
a reference to the then Leader of the Opposition, now Lord Callaghan—
and those who sit behind him to get down Government spending and borrowing, because interest rates will then go down."—[Official Report, 22 November 1979; Vol. 974, c. 554.]
What went wrong with the theory? It is a disastrous failure. Interest rates are still incredibly high. The failure has been unique.
Recently, something important in housing happened. The former Secretary of State for the Environment was moved to the Department of Trade and Industry, much to the regret of that Department, and we now have a new, green Secretary of State who does not understand much about housing but knows that he has a crisis on his hands. He is much more in the mould of the previous Conservative Prime Minister, the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Mr. Heath). Significantly, for the first time in 10 years, as a result of the appointment of the new Secretary of State, instead of going down, the housing investment programme is to go up next year. But what the poor new Secretary of State does not know is that he has already been kiboshed by his predecessor, who put through the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 which will mean that there will still be a cut of no less than 24 per cent. in the HIP.
I am grateful to the Minister for Housing and Planning who, although he may have misquoted me several times, did me the courtesy of quoting me almost word for word when he lifted my Labour party press release in which I spoke about rents going through the roof. One of the things that I recommended to the Conservative party, and have done for a long time, is to enable local authorities to extend the lease-back scheme in the private sector to bring into use the thousands of privately-owned empty properties. Lo and behold, the Minister has done that, using almost my very words. He has, however, done it late, and it appears that there is still no policy because only in November, under the previous Secretary of State for the Environment, the Government said that they would not extend the lease-back scheme.
Those of my hon. Friends who served with me on the Committee stage of the Local Government and Housing Bill will remember that we were told that the lease-back

scheme would not be extended, although we pleaded for it. More of a crisis was brought on when the Government put out their new rent guidelines, based on the capital value of houses. That was guaranteed to send rents rocketing.
I put out a press release saying that rents in Mole Valley, which is represented by the chairman of the Conservative party, would increase by a fantastic £5·20 a week in the first year, and by 115 per cent. over a longer period. Then, in a letter dated 8 December 1989, local authorities were told that the Government seemed to have misjudged the situation and that they would like to review it before Christmas. They do not know what they are doing because they do not have a policy. That is the reason for the crisis.
I said years ago what Conservative and Labour councils throughout the country said—"For heaven's sake recognise the fact that you are creating an enormous housing crisis." I repeat, for the benefit of hon. Members who have said that they did not hear any policy statement, that one way in which to tackle the problem is to allow local authorities to use capital receipts. The hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green wanted to do that. He claimed, possibly correctly, to be the first Conservative Member to invent the right to buy. He also said that local authorities should keep the receipts and use them for housing. As I said in Question Time, when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green pushed for that he was moved to Northern Ireland. The Secretary of State said I was insulting Northern Ireland by saying that. I do not agree. The Prime Minister insulted Northern Ireland and her housing Minister, because he was right.

Sir George Young: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was the housing Minister? Perhaps he would like to give the dates.

Mr. Soley: I am referring to the first years of the Conservative Government—1979 and 1980.

Sir George Young: I think that the hon. Gentleman will find that, in 1979, my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) was the housing Minister and remained such throughout that Parliament.

Mr. Soley: My dates might be marginally wrong.

Mr. Howard: I can help the hon. Gentleman. The time which the hon. Gentleman has in mind is when my hon. Friend the Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Sir H. Rossi) was shadow housing spokesman. He was indeed moved to Northern Ireland, not in any sense for the reason that the hon. Gentleman is suggesting, but because the late Airey Neave was assassinated.

Mr. Soley: The latter assertion is not the case, I am sure. It would be much more impressive if, instead of worrying about the dates when the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green spoke on housing matters, the Minister concentrated on the issue, which is the use of capital receipts. If they were used now, we could allow local authorities and housing associations to start building, repairing and renovating again. That would not be significantly inflationary because, as I said to the Minister earlier, the skill crisis in the building industry would not allow us to use the money quickly. It could only be used over several years.

Mr. Howard: If the hon. Gentleman is so certain that capital receipts would not have inflationary consequences and has succeeded in persuading his colleagues of that proposition, why is there no reference to that policy in his party's policy review?

Mr. Soley: In the policy review process, there was never intended to be any detailed statement of that policy— [Interruption.] That is right. We were reviewing the thrust, direction and aims of party policy, not the detail. That is coming along and has been given in many of my statements—and the Minister knows it. He need not worry about that.
I turn now to some of the comments made by other Conservative Members. The hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. French) is a classic example of why the Government have got housing so seriously wrong. He talked about extending the right to buy and about what a marvellous idea it was. He suggested doing it this way, and extending it that way and talked about all the things that we could do to increase it. However, I want to ask the hon. Gentleman a question that he has not answered, asked himself or even thought of. If we sell all the rented properties, where will the sons and daughters of the people who have bought those homes, or the local people, find somewhere to rent? In the hon. Gentleman's own area the local people cannot find places to rent. Those local people, their sons and daughters, the postmen, teachers and others cannot find anywhere to rent because about 1·25 million houses have disappeared from the rented sector in the past 10 years. Half have been sold and not replaced in the council sector and the other half have disappeared from the much-loved private sector. Why? Because the Government have failed to address the issue of housing finance. It does not pay to replace houses for councils, housing associations or the private sector. Therefore, they are all selling their properties. Even now, housing associations are not back to the position they were in in the mid-1970s. How on earth can the housing association movement, which has recently made public statements on this aspect, make up the difference that has come about because of the cuts in local authority housing?
The hon. Member for Gainsborough and Horncastle (Mr. Leigh) said that repossessions are not caused by interest rates, or not to any great extent. That would be laughable if it was not so tragic. He said that repossessions were caused mainly by unemployment and marital breakdowns. My hon. Friend the Member for Newham, North-West (Mr. Banks) dealt with the point well. Someone with a £40,000 mortgage on which the interest rate was 9·75 per cent. when the mortgage was taken out but which then increased to 13·5 per cent. would have to pay an extra £1,016 per annum. If we are not saying that that can lead to economic distress, what are we saying?
The figures given by the building societies are phenomenal. The figures for repossessions have escalated dramatically. In what was effectively the last year of the Labour Government—the figures carry over to the following year—there were 3,020 repossessions. That was in 1980. Every year thereafter the figure has risen until in 1987—the last year for which figures have been given—repossessions numbered 22,630—a sevenfold increase, which is a far larger increase that that for house purchase and, of course, that figure will increase even more. The

dream of home ownership is being turned into the nightmare of bed and breakfast, paid for by the ratepayers who are soon to be the poll tax payers.
Instead of silly schemes and the Minister trying desperately to react by saying, "Take in a lodger to help pay your bills", without recognising that he must change the law to enable that to happen, he should call in the lending societies, including the banks and the other finance companies and say, "One in 10 of all homeless families are homeless because they cannot pay their mortgages. It is unacceptable that such families with children should go into bed and breakfast. Let's call them in and have a system whereby the local authority or the housing associations could buy the property from you, the lending organisations, and convert it into a rented property." I accept that some funds will be needed for that, but the amount would not be enormous.
Alternatively—the Halifax and other building societies are prepared to consider this—we could have the system that I understand was used in the 1930s in which the ownership was converted and the property became a rented property with the lending organisation either managing the property or paying a housing association to do so. There are many other innovative schemes, but all that the Minister can suggest is, "Take in a lodger" because, he says, if things go wrong, it is easier to get them out under the provisions of the 1988 legislation. He says that such people should simply be put into the street—

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Soley: I shall give way to the Minister in a moment. The Minister said that the Labour party wants to create queues. Well, we did not create the queue for the cardboard boxes, did we? We did not triple, quadruple or whatever the housing list queues, did we? The Conservative party did all that and those queues are a disgrace.

Mr. Howard: rose—

Mr. Soley: Yes, I shall give way to the Minister on one last occasion.

Mr. Howard: On the subject of lodgers, is it the hon. Gentleman's position that building societies should be encouraged to place obstacles in the path of those who wish to take in lodgers? That was the only point that I addressed in my speech on this matter, so perhaps the hon. Gentleman will tell us his position.

Mr. Soley: Subject to satisfactory safeguards, I have no objection to the Minister, the building societies and the other lending organisations getting together to allow that to happen. However, any such provisions must not mean that when the home owner wants to get rid of an individual or when the building society has to repossess because that idea does not work, those people then become homeless almost overnight, adding to the cardboard box queue.
The hon. Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Summerson) should be ashamed of himself for using the example that he did. He is one of those Conservative Members who represent the dinosaur tendency. Anyone who believes that all those homeless and hungry kids who are begging on the streets can get £600 per week for doing that must be out of his tiny little mind. I emphasise that teenage children are begging in the streets and that most of us are


seeing that for the first time in our lives, because one would have to be 60 or 70 to have seen it before. The vast majority of those young people are desperate.
Prior to being elected to the House in 1979, I was a probation officer in one of the most difficult areas of London, but even with homeless youngsters being unloaded at King's Cross and Euston, I could always find such people a roof over their heads unless they were violent or drunk. That cannot be done now. They have to be told to take their place in the queue for the boxes or to take their place in the queues for council homes—

Mr. Summerson: rose—

Mr. Soley: I advise the hon. Gentleman that the Government have created a major and drastic housing crisis, the like of which no one in this country has seen since the end of the second world war. That crisis is hitting the home owner, those who rent in both the private and the public sectors, and it is even hitting the Government. They own no fewer than one dozen homes in my constituency where we have one of the worst housing problems in the country. Those properties have been empty for up to 10 years, yet the Government refuse to let the housing associations take them over. I am talking about three and four-bedroomed houses and flats. The Government say, "We are keeping them empty because they are near Wormwood Scrubs prison and in the long term we want to knock them down to provide car parking and landscaping." That is a measure of the Government's disgraceful policy and it will be thrown out with the Government.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Christopher Chope): What a disgraceful display of synthetic indignation—[Interruption.] This three-and-a-half hour debate has been the Opposition's chance to tell us about their housing policies—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."]

Ms. Hilary Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister has only got half a sentence out.

Mr. Chope: The Opposition have blown their chance. They have shown that they do not have any coherent housing policy—

Ms. Armstrong: rose—

Mr. Chope: I shall give way to the hon. Lady in a moment.
The hon. Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley) is not normally as muddled and incoherent as he has been today, but today he has had to clutch at straws and to rely on some dubious statistics. I shall take just one example of his dubious statistics. I refer to the number of people accepted as homeless by local authorities as a result of mortgage arrears. That number has remained stable over recent years and months—

Mr. Tony Banks: What is it?

Mr. Chope: The proportion of homeless due to mortgage arrears is only 6 per cent., which is down from 10 per cent. three years ago.—

Mr. Battle: rose—

Mr. Chope: I know that Opposition Members do not want the facts to interfere with their argument—

Mr. Battle: Will the Minister give way on those figures?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The Minister is clearly not giving way.

Mr. Chope: I shall give way a number of times, but first I wish to stress the positive side. The Government believe that this has been a successful decade of sustained success in housing. We have won the argument today, as we have throughout the decade. We have increased the quantity and quality of the nation's housing stock. There are now 2 million—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a well-conducted debate. The Minister has a right to make his speech in his own way.

Mr. Chope: This takes me back to just over 10 years ago, when I was the housing chairman in Wandsworth. The Labour party adopted the same tactics then and tried to shout me down and pour cold water on the Conservative housing policies. I am pleased to say that, in a decade of Conservative control in Wandsworth, the proportion of owner-occupation has increased from 27 per cent. to 54 per cent. This year we have seen capital investment by the local authority in Wandsworth of about £100 million. That Conservative council now has control over the best housing stock in inner London as a result of Conservative policies.
I know from experience that the Labour party does not like Conservative policies, because it has not come to terms with the demand for home ownership.

Mr. George Howarth: A few moments ago, the Minister said that this had been a decade of great success for the Government's housing policy. If that is so, why are none of these successes mentioned in the Government's amendment?

Mr. Chope: I know that, in the hon. Gentleman's terms, achieving a massive increase in home ownership and responding to people's demands to exercise home ownership does not constitute a success. The Government have increased the percentage of home ownership to 68 per cent. We still have not gone as far as we would wish, because we know that, of those people under 55, about 90 per cent. still aspire to becoming home owners. However, we are entitled to take stock in this debate and say that our home ownership policies have been extremely successful during this decade.
It is not only in the owner-occupied sector that we have responded to the people's needs and aspirations; 160,000 more units of sheltered accommodation have been made available in the past decade through local authorities and housing associations. There is also a healthy private sector market in sheltered accommodation. Shared ownership —almost unheard of a decade ago—is flourishing under this Government. More than 124,000 houses have been sold under the low-cost home ownership scheme since 1979. We have begun to deregulate the private rented


market. We have shorthold and assured tenancies and a business expansion scheme that has attracted much more private investment into the private rented market.
We have been pursuing a host of other imaginative policies during the past 10 years—none more so than the tenants charter, tenants choice, the priority estates project and Estates Action, on which £190 million was spent this year.
We are still coming forward with new ideas—Conservative-controlled councils are coming forward with most of them. One such idea, referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young), was cash incentives, pioneered by Conservative councils and taken up by the less imaginative Socialist councils. Those cash incentives have a part to play in solving the homelessness problem.
We have revised the proposals so that we shall now be able to allow generous payments—sometimes more than £20,000—to people who wish to move from their existing council accommodation into the private sector. As has been said, that immediately creates a vacancy that can be used for somebody with a real housing need. That positive policy was put forward by the Government and is being emulated by some of the Socialist housing authorities. Next year, we hope to extend that scheme into the housing association sector, and we hope that about 2,500 lettings will arise from the similar tenants incentive scheme for housing associations.

Mr. Paul Flynn: Is the Minister urging other authorities to follow the example of the loony Right Westminster council and its barbarous decision to sell graveyards and try to turn them into building blocks?

Mr. Chope: It is apparent from the hon. Gentleman's remarks that he has not been in on this debate. If he looks at Westminster city council's housing record, he will find that the council spends more on the repair and maintenance of its council stock per unit than any other council in the country, bar one. That shows that it has a sincere concern for improving the housing conditions in Westminster.
My hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Staffordshire (Mr. Heddle) gave some wise advice to those facing difficulties with their mortgages. He advised them to seek their building society's advice before going into the secondary mortgage market. I hope that his advice will be carefully heeded.
The proposal to extend lodgings and encourage more people to take in lodgers has also been mentioned. I find it amazing that Opposition Members do not think it a good idea to make the best use of the nation's housing stock by encouraging and facilitating the taking in of lodgers by those who wish to do so. There are many people who would like—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is unseemly to shout across the Chamber in this way. The Minister must be given a fair chance to answer this debate.

Mr. Terry Patchett: In view of the Minister's enthusiasm for lodgers, how many lodgers is he willing to take?

Mr. Chope: That must be a decision for each individual householder. I have been a lodger in the past, and I have an unsolicited testimonial which says that I was quite a

good lodger. I have also taken in lodgers in the past and would do so again. Whether I would take the hon. Gentleman as a lodger is a more difficult question.
It is most important to encourage maximum investment in housing. The Government believe that we should bring public capital investment and private capital investment together to solve the nation's housing problems. During the past decade, there has been a massive increase in private capital investment in housing. Last year it was £14·8 billion—up from £4·7 billion in 1979, a threefold increase. That means that since 1979 public and private capital investment in housing has gone from £8 billion to over £18 billion. The way to provide better quality housing is to get the public and private sectors working together. Good housing flourishes under a Government who recognise that the public and private sectors work together. It also needs a Government who work with the market rather than against it.
We must ensure that our housing stock is used to the full. I am amazed that the scandal of empty properties presided over by Labour councils up and down the country still exists. Hon. Members who represent Lambeth had a cheek to respond in the way that they did, given that Lambeth council presides over so many empty properties.
We must ensure that taxpayers' resources are directed to those in the greatest need. Above all, we want realistic solutions to housing problems. The Opposition have failed to tell us their policies. Their attitude is totally negative. We had the right policies for the 1980s, and we have them for the 1990s as well. I ask the House to reject the motion and accept the amendment.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 214, Noes 279.

Division No. 17]
[7.00 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Allen, Graham
Canavan, Dennis


Anderson, Donald
Clark, Dr David (S Shields)


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clay, Bob


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clelland, David


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Cohen, Harry


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Coleman, Donald


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Cook, Robin (Livingston)


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Corbett, Robin


Barron, Kevin
Corbyn, Jeremy


Battle, John
Cousins, Jim


Beckett, Margaret
Cox, Tom


Beith, A. J.
Crowther, Stan


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cryer, Bob


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bermingham, Gerald
Cunningham, Dr John


Bidwell, Sydney
Dalyell, Tam


Blair, Tony
Darling, Alistair


Blunkett, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)


Bradley, Keith
Dewar, Donald


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dixon, Don


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Doran, Frank


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Douglas, Dick


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Duffy, A. E. P.


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth


Buchan, Norman
Eadie, Alexander


Buckley, George J.
Eastham, Ken


Caborn, Richard
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Callaghan, Jim
Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)






Fatchett, Derek
Michael, Alun


Faulds, Andrew
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fearn, Ronald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Morgan, Rhodri


Fisher, Mark
Morley, Elliot


Flannery, Martin
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Flynn, Paul
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Mowlam, Marjorie


Foster, Derek
Mullin, Chris


Fraser, John
Murphy, Paul


Fyfe, Maria
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Galloway, George
O'Brien, William


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


George, Bruce
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Patchett, Terry


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Pendry, Tom


Golding, Mrs Llin
Pike, Peter L.


Gordon, Mildred
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Gould, Bryan
Prescott, John


Graham, Thomas
Primarolo, Dawn


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
Radice, Giles


Grocott, Bruce
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Hardy, Peter
Reid, Dr John


Harman, Ms Harriet
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Haynes, Frank
Robertson, George


Heffer, Eric S.
Rogers, Allan


Henderson, Doug
Rooker, Jeff


Hinchliffe, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Hoey, Ms Kate (Vauxhall)
Rowlands, Ted


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Ruddock, Joan


Home Robertson, John
Salmond, Alex


Hood, Jimmy
Sedgemore, Brian


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Sheerman, Barry


Howells, Geraint
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Short, Clare


Hoyle, Doug
Skinner, Dennis


Hughes, John (Coventry NE)
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)


Illsley, Eric
Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)


Ingram, Adam
Snape, Peter


Janner, Greville
Soley, Clive


Johnston, Sir Russell
Spearing, Nigel


Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)
Steinberg, Gerry


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Stott, Roger


Kennedy, Charles
Straw, Jack


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Lambie, David
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Lamond, James
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Leadbitter, Ted
Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)


Leighton, Ron
Turner, Dennis


Litherland, Robert
Wall, Pat


Livingstone, Ken
Wallace, James


Livsey, Richard
Walley, Joan


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Warden, Gareth (Gower)


Lofthouse, Geoffrey
Wareing, Robert N.


Loyden, Eddie
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


McAllion, John
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


McCartney, Ian
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Macdonald, Calum A.
Wigley, Dafydd


McFall, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


McGrady, Eddie
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)
Wilson, Brian


Maclennan, Robert
Winnick, David


McNamara, Kevin
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Madden, Max
Worthington, Tony


Mahon, Mrs Alice
Wray, Jimmy


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Martlew, Eric



Maxton, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Meacher, Michael
Mr. Frank Cook and


Meale, Alan
Mr. Jimmy Dunnachie.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Amos, Alan


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Arbuthnot, James


Amess, David
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)





Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Ashby, David
Gill, Christopher


Aspinwall, Jack
Glyn, Dr Alan


Atkins, Robert
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Atkinson, David
Goodlad, Alastair


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Baldry, Tony
Gow, Ian


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Gregory, Conal


Bellingham, Henry
Grist, Ian


Bendall, Vivian
Grylls, Michael


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Benyon, W.
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bevan, David Gilroy
Hampson, Dr Keith


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Hanley, Jeremy


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Hannam,John


Body, Sir Richard
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Harris, David


Boswell, Tim
Haselhurst, Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Hawkins, Christopher


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Hayward, Robert


Bowis, John
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Heddle, John


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Brazier, Julian
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Bright, Graham
Hind, Kenneth


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Browne, John (Winchester)
Howard, Michael


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Buck, Sir Antony
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Budgen, Nicholas
Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey


Burns, Simon
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Burt, Alistair
Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)


Butcher, John
Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)


Butler, Chris
Hunter, Andrew


Butterfill, John
Irvine, Michael


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Irving, Charles


Cash, William
Jack, Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Janman, Tim


Chapman, Sydney
Jessel, Toby


Chope, Christopher
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Churchill, Mr
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Jones, Robert B (Herts W)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Jopling, Rt Hon Michael


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Key, Robert


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)


Colvin, Michael
Kirkhope, Timothy


Conway, Derek
Knapman, Roger


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Knight, Greg (Derby North)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Knowles, Michael


Cormack, Patrick
Knox, David


Couchman, James
Lamont, Rt Hon Norman


Cran, James
Latham, Michael


Critchley, Julian
Lawrence, Ivan


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel


Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)
Lee, John (Pendle)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)


Day, Stephen
Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)


Devlin, Tim
Lilley, Peter


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)


Dover, Den
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Dunn, Bob
Lyell, Sir Nicholas


Durant, Tony
Macfarlane, Sir Neil


Dykes, Hugh
MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)


Emery, Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Fallon, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Favell, Tony
McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael


Fenner, Dame Peggy
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey
Madel, David


Fishburn, John Dudley
Major, Rt Hon John


Fookes, Dame Janet
Malins, Humfrey


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Maples, John


Fox, Sir Marcus
Marlow, Tony


Franks, Cecil
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


French, Douglas
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)






Maude, Hon Francis
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Soames, Hon Nicholas


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Speed, Keith


Mellor, David
Speller, Tony


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Miller, Sir Hal
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Mills, Iain
Squire, Robin


Miscampbell, Norman
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Steen, Anthony


Mitchell, Sir David
Stern, Michael


Moate, Roger
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Monro, Sir Hector
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stokes, Sir John


Moore, Rt Hon John
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Sumberg, David


Morrison, Sir Charles
Summerson, Hugo


Moss, Malcolm
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Mudd, David
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Neale, Gerrard
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Nelson, Anthony
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Nicholls, Patrick
Temple-Morris, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Onslow, Rt Hon Cranley
Thorne, Neil


Oppenheim, Phillip
Thornton, Malcolm


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Patnick, Irvine
Tredinnick, David


Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Trippier, David


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Trotter, Neville


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pawsey, James
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Viggers, Peter


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Powell, William (Corby)
Waldegrave, Hon William


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Walden, George


Redwood, John
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Waller, Gary


Rhodes James, Robert
Ward, John


Riddick, Graham
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Warren, Kenneth


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Watts, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Wells, Bowen


Rossi, Sir Hugh
Wheeler, John


Rost, Peter
Widdecombe, Ann


Rowe, Andrew
Wiggin, Jerry


Sackville, Hon Tom
Wilshire, David


Sainsbury, Hon Tim
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Winterton, Nicholas


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Woodcock, Dr. Mike


Shelton, Sir William
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)



Shersby, Michael
Tellers for the Noes:


Sims, Roger
Mr. David Lightbown and


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Stephen Dorrell.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to be agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House 'welcomes Her Majesty's Government's commitment to home ownership throughout the last ten years which has enabled many more people to own their homes; recognises the benefits which have resulted from the introduction of the Right to Buy for council tenants; further recognises that the Government's sound economic policies have played an important part in facilitating the growth in owner-occupation; and urges the Government to maintain those policies in the interests of home owners, first-time buyers and the nation as a whole.'.

Famine (Ethiopia)

Mr. Speaker: I must announce to the House that I have selected the amendment in the name of the Prime Minister.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I beg to move,
That this House deplores the totally inadequate response of Her Majesty's Government to the immediate threat of famine in Ethiopia.
I am sorry that the Minister for Overseas Development is not present. I understand that she is ill. On behalf of Opposition Members I send her our good wishes for a speedy recovery.
As I talk, people are dying in Ethiopia. Everyone now recognises that it is possible to save lives if emergency aid is given swiftly and generously. It is in that context that I open the debate. Britain spends far too little on overseas aid. The United Nations asks all developed countries, including Britain, to spend 0·7 per cent. of their gross national product on overseas aid each year. Some countries meet the target. In 1988 the Governments of Norway, the Netherlands, Denmark, Sweden and France all spent more than 0·7 per cent. of their GNP on aid. The previous Labour Government were moving steadily towards that target, despite the international economic circumstances of the late 1970s.
When my party left office, United Kingdom aid as a percentage of GNP was 0·52 per cent. Under this Government, the figure has fallen to a meagre 0·32 per cent., less than half the United Nations target and one of the lowest ever recorded for the United Kingdom. So-called Government wets such as the right hon. Members for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison), for Bath (Mr. Patten) and for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) have been happy to preside as Minister for Overseas Development as the Government have slashed the aid budget as a percentage of GNP year after year since Labour was in office in 1979.

Mr. Jacques Arnold: Does the hon. Lady agree that Labour Governments invariably have a record of increasing GNP very little or not at all, whereas Conservative Governments increase GNP considerably? Is not that a statistical influence on the trend that she suggests? Should we not debate the absolute figures for aid and the direction in which they should go?

Mrs. Clwyd: The hon. Gentleman clearly does not understand the points that I make. If I read out the figures, he will find that they are deeply embarrassing for the Government. It would be useful to put them on record. In 1977, under the Labour Government, United Kingdom aid as a percentage of GNP was 0·444 per cent. In 1978, it was 0·46 per cent. In 1979, it was 0·52 per cent. in subsequent years under a Tory Government, it was 0·35 per cent., 0·43 per cent., 0·37 per cent., 0·33 per cent., 0·33 per cent., 0·31 per cent., 0·28 per cent. and 0·32 per cent. That is the position under the Tory Government compared to the position under a Labour Government.

Mr. Arnold: rose—

Mrs. Clywd: No, I shall not give way again.
As a result of the Government's cuts in aid, the Third world has lost at least £6·4 billion of aid. Yet the scale of the problems facing developing countries today is massive. Almost 1 billion people in Africa, Asia and South America —a quarter of the world's population—live in absolute


poverty without hope of adequate food or shelter. Millions more face malnutrition, unemployment and disease, often without basic health or social services.
For the poor in the Third world, life is a constant struggle for survival. Third world Governments have had to run to keep up with the need for economic growth. The last few years have not been years of plenty for the Third world but years of suffering and austerity.
In his Autumn Statement, the Chancellor of the Exchequer told us that the United Kingdom net aid programme will increase by 6 per cent. in 1990–91, by 6 per cent. the following year and by 4 per cent. the year after that. In real terms that means that the aid programme is likely to decline even further over the next three years. It is unlikely to keep pace with inflation, unless one believes the Treasury's constant optimistic forecasts. Meanwhile Britain continues to pay lip service to the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP. During the 1983 general election campaign, the Prime Minister pledged:
When economic circumstances permit, we shall move towards the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. of GNP.
Earlier this year, she told the House:
we now have a higher standard of living than we have ever known. We have a great budget surplus."—[Official Report; 28 February 1989; Vol. 148, c. 154–55.]
It is so great that we have now fallen further and further behind the United Nations target and the levels of aid given by other major industrialised countries. In the league table of all 18 western aid givers, Britain, to its shame, dropped to 14th place last year. As a result, Britain was singled out for criticism by the other western donor countries when a committee of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development argued:
the time has come to reverse the downward trend in the UK's Overseas Development Aid/GNP ratio…and to make sustained progress towards the 0·7 per cent. of GNP, ODA target.
In 1988 the Foreign Affairs Select Committee recommended that the aid budget should increase in line with the nation's increasing wealth and that the Government should set a timetable for achieving that target. However, in reply to my question of 7 December, the Secretary of State was extremely coy and referred me to an earlier reply from the Prime Minister dated 6 June. She was asked:
when Her Majesty's Government expect to achieve the United Nations target of 0·7 per cent. gross national product for overseas aid.
Her reply was:
The Government accept this target in principle but like previous Administrations and many other donors are not able to set a date for achieving it. Progress towards it must depend upon developments in the economy and other claims on our resources."—[Official Report, 6 June 1989; Vol. 154, c. 129.]
I am pleased that aid to eastern Europe has been additional to the aid budget. I hope that the Minister can give us specific assurances tonight that all future aid to eastern Europe will be additional to aid levels currently planned.
The threat of widespread famine is sweeping northern Ethiopia again. It is the third famine in the past 10 years. The average yields from this month's grain harvest in Tigray and Eritrea are only 15 per cent. of the normal level. Grain prices have more than doubled and starvation has already claimed its first victims among small children and the old.
The threat of famine is again the result of droughts in Eritrea, Tigray and Wollo, and the civil war which has been continuing for the past 25 years—exactly the same combination which led to the massive famine of 1984–85 and the near famine of 1987–88. Many people who gave so generously in response to the famine of 1984–85 through Band Aid, Live Aid and Sport Aid must have hoped that such a terrible situation would never happen again. Why is it happening again? The continuing war has devastated food production, dramatically limited long-term agricultural programmes and forced significant migrations of people even in times of good harvests. Failure of the rains in all but three of the past 10 years and a severe drought this year have meant that between 60 and 100 per cent. of crops have been lost in some areas.
The Foreign Affairs Select Committee in its excellent report on famine in the Horn of Africa predicted in 1988 that there was a serious danger of a major catastrophe in northern Ethiopia on a far greater scale than the famine of 1984–85. The report stated:
An impression may have been created in the donor countries that, since so many lessons have been learnt, the horrors of 1984–85 would not recur. This would be dangerously false optimism…But droughts will occur again —the rains have failed or been inadequate in 3 of the last 4 years—and with a fast-growing population, poor farming techniques, widespread deforestation and land degradation, the consequent famines are likely to be increasingly severe…And by each successive drought the resilence of the people and of the land is diminished. It is a spiral which, if unbroken, must result in tragedy.
There is still time to avert that tragedy and ensure that as few people die as possible of the 4 million whom the aid agencies say are now at risk.
Ethiopia needs more than 600,000 tonnes of emergency food over the coming months, on top of the 450,000 tonnes it needs every year to cover its chronic food deficit. The United Nations world food programme, which estimates overall needs, urgently contacted aid agencies on 9 December saying that world donors have pledged only 30 per cent. of the total food requested. In theory, Ethiopia and the international community are both physically better prepared to face the emergency than in 1984, but in practice the awful reality is that thousands could die as the innocent victims of war, famine and indifference.
Although the country's main ports of Assab and Massawa have steadily increased their capacity since 1984–85 and can handle as much as 800,000 tonnes of food a year, the problem is that food shipped to the ports for distribution through Government channels cannot, as things stand at present, reach more than a quarter of the people in need. Outside Government-held areas are 2·5 million people in Tigray which is entirely controlled by the Tigray People's Liberation Front. A further 1·5 million of those most seriously affected are in Eritrea, mainly in areas held by the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. In both Tigray and Eritrea there are local aid organisations whose track record on distributing food and other aid is acknowledged by Western aid agencies. The two organisations are ERA and REST. This morning I received a telex from REST which states:
The latest expatriate monitor to visit the affected areas has reported that some people are already foraging for food, digging up wild bulbs and roots. He has confirmed that individual food stocks are nearly exhausted in many areas and that funds are urgently needed now for internal purchase as the timing is all important. More food shipments are desperately needed as soon as possible.


At present several western aid agencies are involved in channelling food through these local agencies from Port Sudan, because it is absolutely imperative that the people most in need must be reached now. Obviously, that can be done best through an open-roads policy, using the northern route of Massawa, which is Government held, in Eritrea to supply a route from Government-held Asmara down the main road to Mekele and Tigray and to Weldiya in Wollo and intermediate points. The Tigray People's Liberation Front is said to he only 90 miles from the capital, Addis. President Mengistu is thought likely to take the view, as he has in the past, that food aid would only strengthen his enemies. While the British Government and others must urgently renew their appeals for an opening up of the supply routes, it must be somewhat unrealistic to expect that to happen quickly.
Reports from Kenya yesterday claim that Ethiopia has agreed to open up the corridors in the north of the country to allow food aid to reach the 4 million people threatened with starvation. But there is no confirmation yet that terms have been agreed. The fear is that hunger will continue to be used as a weapon of war. I should be grateful to the Minister if he could tell us whether he has any news about whether the Ethiopian Government and the rebels have agreed a policy on that. Several calls to the Ethiopian embassy and elsewhere today have failed to obtain official confirmation. According to all the aid agencies, in the event of the Ethiopian Government continuing to refuse access or of the rebel groups refusing to stop fighting, a cross-border operation from the Sudan will be essential.
Some food comes from eastern Sudan and some from abroad through Port Sudan and on to Eritrea and Tigray. As many hon. Members know, that means relying on truck convoys, late at night to escape Government aircraft bombing them, travelling more than 600 miles on rough roads. One accepts that it is politically difficult for donor Governments to bypass the Ethiopian Government in this way, but a cross-border operation from the Sudan must be used as fully as possible. I am glad that the British Government now accept that argument.
What, then, are the needs of the people inside Ethiopia? Everyone agrees that aid is needed now to avoid a repeat of the harrowing scenes of 1984, when hundreds of thousands starved to death and the nightly pictures on television of babies dying in the arms of their widowed mothers brought home the full horror of the tragedy. At least 600,000 tonnes of food and other essential supplies are needed as soon as possible, but already people have begun to emigrate from the areas where there is no food. One lesson that was learned the last time around was that it was uneconomical and socially destructive for people to leave their homes and their land. Thousands of people died on their way to feeding centres or through the spread of contagious diseases in refugee camps and feeding centres.
A doctor responsible for health care in Eritrea came to see me yesterday. He said:
Anyone who can walk, walks away from death if they can.
The truth is that many people would not have died last time if food had been brought to them in time. It is, therefore, vital to take food to the people as soon as possible.
The war is going badly for the Government. They have been involved in negotiations with the rebels. Jimmy Carter and Julius Nyerere have both become involved in negotiations with the EPLF and the Government. Talks

have been held in Atlanta and Nairobi, but as yet have reached no conclusion. The Italian Government are mediating in talks between the TPLF and the Ethiopian Government and one round of talks has taken place in Rome. It is clearly in everyone's interest for a monitored ceasefire to be negotiated as soon as possible. The talks require all the backing that they can get.
What can and should the United Kingdom do now? It can call for a speeding up of peace discussions between the Ethiopian Government, the TPLF and the EPLF. It can press the Ethiopian Government and the rebels to accept an open-roads agreement. The United Nations must play a leading role in negotiating that. It can support the cross-border food and agriculture rehabilitation programme. It can make money available for internal purchase of food where that is possible. It should obtain maximum support from the EEC member states for those objectives.
As a direct result of the famine crisis, the United Kingdom has pledged a meagre £2 million, and that was only the day after the BBC reports on Ethiopia began to appear on television. I raised the matter on a point of order on 27 November and called for a statement from the Government. The fact that the Government have been indifferent and very slow off the mark is illustrated by a letter that the director general of the Save the Children Fund sent to The Independent on 29 November. He said:
We welcome the publicity from Michael Buerk on BBC Television on the possibility of famine recurring in parts of northern Ethiopia. A number of voluntary agencies in Britain, including ourselves, have been warning of this problem for the past two months. It is sad, but perhaps not surprising, that it requires dramatic pictures on television to propel our own government into a response.
What does that £2 million actually mean? It would not be quite fair to say that the Government do not care tuppence for the starving—they actually care three and a half pence, the amount from each person in the United Kingdom that makes up that £2 million, which itself will buy only I per cent. of the emergency food aid so desperately needed. Yet at the same time, the Government quite easily found £40 million to spend on advertising water privatisation in pursuit of their own dogma.
Only last week War on Want applied for £300,000 to buy food inside Tigray. Its application was turned down by the Government because, they said, there was no money in the kitty. That may be true, but the Minister for Overseas Development and the Minister who is here to speak on her behalf tonight must know that if they had the political clout they could obtain the money from the Government's overall contingency fund, which exists for precisely this sort of emergency and which this year stands at more than £2 billion.

Mr. Jim Lester: One of the recommendations of the Select Committee has always been that when there is a disaster the Treasury's contingency fund should be used. Would it not be better if the hon. Lady was fair with her figures? The £2 million is an additional £2 million, and brings the total this year to £13 million, which is a rather more generous figure than that suggested by the hon. Lady.

Mrs. Clwyd: The point that the hon. Gentleman obviously missed, even though I stressed it forcefully, was that in direct response to the famine crisis the Government gave only £2 million.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I had intended to respond to this point in my speech. The hon. Lady is digging herself into a pit. The dates will easily show that what the hon. Lady said is not true. The £13 million is a response to the famine, and the Government responded long before she raised her point of order and long before this debate.

Mrs. Clwyd: I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will find it difficult to prove his point. A press release from the Overseas Development Administration, in response to the threat of famine in Ethiopia, makes it clear that the £2 million relief aid was a direct response to the worsening position in Ethiopia. The other money would have been given in any event, and was not provided in direct response to the famine crisis.
What sort of world do we live in that we, in the rich developed countries, can turn our faces away from the suffering of the Third world? We spend £500 million each year on special diets to lower our calorie consumption while the world's poorest 400 million people are so undernourished that they are likely to suffer stunted growth, mental retardation or death. As water from a single spring in England is shipped in bottles to the prosperous around the world, 1·9 billion people drink dirty and contaminated water. More than half of humanity lacks sanitary toilets.
Are we again to depend on the generosity of the British people to put their hands in their pockets once more for the starving of Ethiopia? They have already contributed £1 million in response to the television broadcast last week. Is it too much to expect the British Government to make the proper response to the 4 million people who are so desperately crying out for our help? Whatever the Government do or do not do, the next Labour Government will reverse the cuts made in aid spending since 1979. We shall aim to more than double the aid budget to reach the United Nations target of 0.7 per cent. of gross national product within five years, the lifetime of a single Parliament. We shall also review the procedures for emergency relief.
The disastrous famine that hit much of Africa in the early 1980s showed the need for much more effective emergency relief within our programme for aid and development. We shall discuss contingency plans and early warning systems with other donors and the Governments of countries vulnerable to famine and other disasters. Unlike the present Government, we shall also be prepared to use money from outside the aid budget—from the overall contingency reserve—to provide urgent emergency relief during a major crisis such as the Ethiopian famine. That is because we believe that sharing our wealth and feeding hungry people is part of our wider responsibility as citizens of the world. It is a view which we believe is shared by the majority of the British people.

The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. William Waldegrave): I beg to move, to leave out from "House" to the end of the Question and add instead thereof:
'welcomes the speed and effectiveness with which Her Majesty's Government has responded to the threat of famine in Northern Ethiopia through the provision of food and emergency aid; and strongly endorses its diplomatic action

aimed at persuading the parties to the civil wars in Ethiopia to seek a negotiated end to these conflicts and to facilitate the transport of food to those at risk of famine.'.
1 had hoped that on this, of all subjects, we would not go straight into a political argy-bargy. Such points can be easily made. A Labour Government could easily have increased aid as a percentage of GNP simply by making the GNP smaller. However, it is easy to show that in absolute terms the Government have done extremely well.
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) for her kind words about my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development and I shall pass those on to her. I found little to disagree with in the hon. Lady's political analysis, but one point on which I shall disagree relates to the local purchase of food in Tigray. However, I am afraid that she was either misled by those who have done her research for her—

Mrs. Clwyd: I do my own research.

Mr. Waldegrave: In that case, the hon. Lady is mistaken about what is happening this year.
We are deeply concerned, with the other donor countries, to prevent a repetition of the appalling suffering that we witnessed five years ago. I had hoped, although it may be impossible with the Leader of the Opposition on the Front Bench, that there would not be any party political point-scoring this evening. Opposition Members, including the hon. Member for Cynon Valley, know a great deal about the subject and we had hoped to hear from them positive ideas and practical suggestions to which we could respond.
We welcome the debate for two reasons. First, it enables us to put right some of the misunderstandings in the speech made by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Secondly, as the hon. Lady said, the British people will no doubt again wish to respond generously, and this debate, along with the many other activities taking place around the country, will help to focus the nation's attention on the situation. There is nothing wrong with that. As the hon. Lady said, the first £1 million has already been raised. I see nothing to complain about in that. It is admirable.
Let us consider what the Government have been doing. Rather before the hon. Lady took up the subject, we were sending aid, and that is important. About 3 million people in Eritrea and Tigray face the threat of famine over the coming months. The organisations concerned estimate that about 600,000 tonnes of food aid will be needed between now and next October—that is also important to rescue those people. The hon. Lady is incorrect to say that about 30 per cent. of that has been pledged. She may not have noticed that the Americans have added a further 100,000 tonnes, which means that more than 50 per cent. has been pledged. In the immediate situation, that is probably enough because, as I think the hon. Lady will agree, the 600,000 tonnes will be needed between now and next October.
The hon. Lady's analysis rightly focused on the real problem of getting the food to the people who need it against a background of civil war. As she rightly said, at least half the people at risk are in rebel-held areas.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that the first calculations of how much aid would be needed during the previous famine were under-estimates and that as the famine developed it became clear that rather more would be needed? Is the


Minister satisfied that the estimate that he has given is correct and that the 50 per cent. that he claims has been pledged is 50 per cent. of the amount that is really needed rather than of an initial estimate?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. The estimates will be revised if the situation worsens. I think that he will agree, however, that the last famine was the one that did not happen. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley rightly said, the international effort three years ago averted a famine. It is worth paying tribute to the aid organisations and to the Governments involved. Since then, the civil war has worsened and created further problems, which we are now trying to address. The rebels —the EPLF and the TPLF—hold a much greater area of country, particularly the TPLF which has much greater control over the roads and, as the hon. Lady said, is 80 or 90 miles from Addis Ababa.
Channels exist for the transport of food into the rebel-held areas of Eritrea and Tigray from Sudan, but, as the hon. Lady recognised, there are formidable logistical problems in view of tonnages and distances involved, the shortage of transport and the bombings. However optimistic one is about the 1,000-mile round trip, it will not be possible to meet all Tigray's needs in that way. We shall have to see what can he done using that route. The hon. Lady will understand if, for obvious reasons, some of the methods and routes used by the international organisations with British Government support are not described in too much detail.
The Government's objective is simple, now as in the last famine—the famine that never was. The objective is to avert the famine. We are taking action on two fronts. We are providing food and relief assistance for the aid programme and we are acting through diplomatic channels in concert with European partners and others to try to ensure that the flow of supplies to those at risk of starvation is not hindered by the continuing war. That is the crucial aspect, as the hon. Lady recognised.
The hon. Lady was unfair, however, when she said that our response was belated or that it came only after television coverage or her points of order on 27 November. If the hon. Lady had listened to the statement made by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development on 4 December, at column 19 of Hansard, she would know that the £2 million of emergency aid announced at the end of October was by no means our first response to the famine. For example, the allocation of nearly 7,000 tonnes of cereal, which my right hon. Friend approved for Eritrea as early as August when the first signs of impending famine became apparent, was one of the first to arrive in the country—almost the first part of the international response. Since then, we have provided further food aid, bringing our total to more than 27,000 tonnes. Nor is the latest contribution of £2 million likely to be our last. We shall continue to play our part. As the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) rightly said, as the dimensions of the famine and the possibilities of getting food to the people are further assessed, the British Government, along with other Governments, will respond.

Mr. Michael Welsh: Getting from A to B in Tigray is difficult. Even money may not achieve that and people may die if something is not done. It may be difficult to get from Sudan. It may take many lorries,

but are the lorries there? However much money there is, without lorries the food cannot be taken to those unfortunate people. Are arrangements being made to ensure that lorries will be there to transport food to the people within weeks rather than months?

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Gentleman is right. Part of the recent extra money went specifically towards trucks and lorries for the cross-border routes, about which we do not want to go into too much detail, and inside the country. That has been a particular part of the British effort.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The Minister has said that it is unlikely that the last money has been allocated and I, like everybody else, am encouraged by that. In any future expenditure, will money be provided directly to the Relief Society of Tigray and to the Eritrean Relief Association? That may be an unusual action for a Government, but those bodies are best placed to purchase such food surpluses as exist within Eritrea and Tigray and to ensure that the food available in those provinces is allocated in the shortest possible time. Otherwise, people will starve. Will the Minister give an assurance that that difficult but necessary initiative will be taken?

Mr. Waldegrave: We certainly do not rule out anything but the right hon. Gentleman will recognise that there are real difficulties. If one provides money for local purchase, particularly in the Tigrayan area, there is the danger that the TPLF, which controls the area, will use it to buy arms. Worse than that, we may create an incentive for the TPLF to obtain local food supplies and then sell them. However, if we can be assured that we are doing good, we do not rule out any mechanism.

Mr. Jim Lester: We have looked at the problem several times in the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. The real difficulty is not just providing the money, but monitoring whether the money provided is used for food and whether that food is then distributed.

Mr. Waldegrave: My hon. Friend confirms my point on the basis of his considerable experience. It would be dreadful if we were inadvertently allowing money to go directly or indirectly into the coffers of those whose civil wars are creating a large part of the disaster.
The £13·5 million committed so far this year in Ethiopia includes assistance for refugees and our share of the cost of relief aid provided by the European Community. That shows the other side of the case put by the hon. Member for Cynon Valley. Britain has provided nearly £150 million in aid since the onset of the last major famine in 1984. That includes more than 200,000 tonnes of food aid. The programme is not niggardly.

Mr. Thomas Graham: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: Perhaps I had better continue, as this is not a long debate and I have given way many times.
A senior Overseas Development Administration official visited Ethiopia in October to assess the situation at first hand. In the light of the information that he brought back, we took immediate action to alert our European Community partners and others—including the United States and the Soviet Union, which is an important player having at one time or another supported all three of the organisations involved and which still has a close


relationship with the Ethiopian Government—to the likely extent of the problem. We urged them to use all possible influence with all the parties in the civil conflict to allow relief supplies across the lines without hindrance.
I was in Addis Ababa on 8 November for a briefing from our excellent ambassador, Mr. Walker. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development gave a detailed account to the House on 4 December of the subsequent steps which she took in Rome, Brussels, Washington and Paris to reinforce the earlier message through the diplomatic channels. Last weekend, at the European Council in Strasbourg, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister joined the other Community Heads of Government in the Community in issuing a clear statement of the Community's deep concern. I am glad to say that that was largely a British initiative.
The Soviet Government were approached in London and Moscow and have also directed the attention of the Ethiopian authorities to the seriousness of the problem. Probably no other Government carry so much weight with the Ethiopians.
I have stressed the importance—as did the hon. Member for Cynon Valley—of access across the lines for relief supplies if food in the amounts required is to reach those who need it in the rebel-held areas. Hon. Members will have seen reports, to which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley referred, that President Moi of Kenya told an independence rally in Nairobi yesterday that President Mengistu had agreed to open the roads. We have been in close touch with Nairobi and Addis Ababa to see whether that is so. However, like the hon. Lady, we have not secured clear confirmation of it yet, although we have indications that it is under serious and genuine consideration in Addis Ababa. If it is, let us take this opportunity for the House to add to the international pressure and say to the Ethiopians that it is essential that they should open the roads. I am sure that hon. Members from both sides of the House will say that with all the passion at our disposal. In the pressing time scale and because of the logistical difficulties of the cross-border routes, that is the only way to bring real hope to the large numbers of people involved.

Mr. Timothy Raison: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Waldegrave: My right hon. Friend is an expert.

Mr. Raison: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. Surely it would be much easier to give a strong message to the Ethiopians and others concerned if the House did not have to have a Division on a foolish motion. Will my hon. Friend tell the House what the European Community is doing in terms of food provisions as it has enormous stocks and its role is essential?

Mr. Waldegrave: I hinted that I agreed with my right hon. Friend in what I said earlier. If the non-governmental organisations had a genuine case showing that the Government were failing disastrously, it would be legitimate for the Opposition to press us, but that is not the case. We have had meetings today—which my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development would have chaired if she had been well but which were chaired by an official—with all the principal NGOs, and they are not

saying that there is something dramatically wrong with the Government's programme. They welcome the steps that we have taken and we are working closely with them.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister not think it unusual for the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) to complain about the Opposition's view on this when in his open letter to his successor—now the Secretary of State for the Environment—he said that the only discussion that he had with the Prime Minister on these issues was on the day she sacked him? Surely it is appropriate that when there are clear divisions in the House they should be expressed.

Mr. Waldegrave: There are bound to be arguments about the total level of the aid programme. On this programme, as on every other, the Opposition will say that they would spend more. Over the past few years, however, there has been no serious criticism from the experts about the organisation of emergency relief. My right hon. Friend the Member for Aylesbury, my right hon. Friend the present Secretary of State for the Environment and my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development have so improved the arrangements for emergency relief that that area of criticism is not the right one on which to launch a division in the House. However, I would not say that there are not areas in which any Government could do better.
The ODA is in regular daily contact with the main British voluntary agencies working in Ethiopia. I have reported on the meeting that took place today. The NGOs were appreciative of the Government's efforts so far. The voluntary agencies have a vital role to play in channeling emergency aid—that which we provide and the funds that they raise—to the hungry. Their expertise and experience are vital. They are an asset to which hon. Members on both sides of the House will join me in paying tribute.
I have spoken of what the Government have done and are doing. I offer no apologies for our record of response to the intense danger of famine which we hope can still be averted. We have done what I am sure the hon. Member for Cynon Valley would have done if she stood in the place of my right hon. Friend the Minister. We have acted promptly and effectively in response to the signals of approaching famine and it did not require television pictures or public pressure to stir us into action.

Mrs. Clwyd: I read the letter from the director general of the Save the Children Fund in which he specifically argued that the Government's response had not been prompt and that they had responded only after the BBC films by Michael Buerk. Does the Minister have an answer to that? Surely it is not correct to say that the aid agencies are happy with the speed and quantity of the Government's response.

Mr. Waldegrave: The hon. Lady has perhaps not read the response given by my right hon. Friend the Minister on 4 December. She was prevented from being at the meeting today and although I was not there I have had reports from the officials who were. The attempts to allege that there is a campaign by the NGOs against the Government will not run. It is not commensurate with the scale of events to try to make them run.
The hon. Lady's main point, although she spoiled it a little by her factionalism, was that we in this House passionately wish to do all that we can to avoid the threat


of widespread famine and starvation in Ethopia. She made a good point—that it is essential to try to prevent people from moving. There is an additional reason for that, which the hon. Lady did not mention—that if people move they do not sow crops for next year in places where they may grow, thus possibly creating a further cycle of crop failure.
The immense generosity of people in the West, the British people among them and the formidable response of Western Governments, who succeeded in averting the last threatened famine and, pray God, will do so this time as well, must not disguise the fact that the key to the problem lies in the hands of the Ethopians, on both the Government and the rebel side. Civil war does not cause drought and crop failure, hut it is a serious and unnecessary obstacle to efforts to alleviate the effects of natural disasters.
Bob Geldof was right when he said that if there is a famine this year, it will be man made. In the long term, the civil war is a drain on the country's meagre resources of money, energy and talent which would be far better devoted to the task of working to provide the infrastructure and conditions necessary to break the cycle of famine.
We therefore welcome the opening of talks between the Government and the two main rebel groups. Peace is still beyond the horizon and the process is a fragile one. We, on both sides of the House, can but urge the parties to the talks to persevere, to be flexible and, above all, to keep talking in a way which leads to action. Lives—millions of them—ultimately depend on that.

Mr. Dennis Canavan: It is difficult to believe that it is five years since famine in Ethiopia first hit world headlines. At that time I went to Sudan and Ethiopia with the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs. Despite the fact that the Committee had, and still has, a Conservative majority, our report was very critical of the Government's inadequate response to the famine in Ethiopia. We referred to the generous response of the British people, which was due to people such as Bob Geldof and the public appeals that were made by non-governmental organisations and other voluntary organisations. However, our report stated clearly that, sad to say, the generosity of the British people had not been matched by the British Government.
The Committee went to Ethiopia again last year. In our updated report on famine in the Horn of Africa, we said that there was serious danger of a major catastrophe in northern Ethiopia and that it would be on a far greater scale than that in 1984–85. The Government and the House cannot, therefore, claim that they were not warned, yet in Tigray alone approximately 2·5 million people are threatened with famine.
Many people who put their hands into their pockets five years ago and gave generously deserve an answer to the question, why are people still starving? Some people have attempted to blame it on the weather. There are many climatic problems in that part of the world, but we cannot hold up our hands in horror and blame it all on the weather, as though famine were an act of God. It is not. It is a consequence of man's inhumanity to man. It is up to us to find a solution. The developed countries have a particular responsibility to find a solution. The many climatic difficulties in that part of the world could and

should have been overcome had the developed countries invested more money in long-term agricultural projects to regenerate the economy.
The Relief Society of Tigray said that it received only 6·2 per cent. of the budget that it requested for agricultural programmes. Wars continue in Ethiopia as a whole. They have reached the stage where Mengistu, backed by the Soviet Union and, apparently, by Israel and North Korea, is spending over 50 per cent. of his national budget on military and related expenditure. Even worse, he is apparently using famine as a weapon of war. He is trying to starve the people into submission. His forces are in control of the Red sea ports of Assab and Massawa, which makes it very difficult, if not impossible, for food to reach the people who are most in need. The only reasonable alternative is to use the Relief Society of Tigray to get food into Ethiopia from Sudan by means of a cross-border operation.
What can the British Government do? I understand that there are those in Government circles, including Ministers, who believe that for diplomatic reasons it is difficult, if not impossible, for the British Government to become over-involved in Ethiopia's internal affairs. That is a strange position for the Government and the Prime Minister to be in. It would be ironic if the iron lady, the erstwhile scourge of Communism, was prepared to stand by while people starved to death because she was afraid of causing offence to a discredited, self-styled Marxist regime.
It is about time that a tougher line was taken in public against the Ethiopian Government. Mengistu should be told bluntly that we are not prepared to stand idly by while thousands of people die. We should get off the fence. We should give financial help and all the other assistance that we can give to the Relief Society of Tigray's cross-border operation from Sudan.
I accept entirely the point about the need to monitor the exercise. There is no hard evidence that the Relief Society of Tigray is using money to buy armaments. If, however, it is feared that the money that has been given to alleviate starvation is being misdirected towards the purchase of arms, efficient monitoring would help to alleviate that fear. It seems to me from our contact with the Relief Society of Tigray, through the Select Committee and personally, that REST has the organisation, the track record and the proven experience to carry that out. Since 1984–85 REST has been involved in the repatriation of 170,000 people from Sudan to their homes in Tigray. It achieved that without riot police with riot helmets, riot gear, truncheons and everything else we have seen in Hong Kong recently under the auspices of the British Government who are treating people like caged animals,
Once again Christmas is approaching and the Prime Minister would have us believe that we are living in a Christian country. Given recent events, it appears that Britain's reputation throughout the world is heading for the gutter. Perhaps we should try to salvage something of that reputation by showing a more humane attitude in our treatment of people elsewhere in the world, particularly in Ethiopia where they are starving. I hope that the message that comes from tonight's debate is that the whole House demands urgent and firmer action from the British Government.

Sir John Stanley: I suppose that for all of us occasional sights are so etched in our memories that they will remain with us for the rest of our lives. One such sight for me is the visit I made almost exactly five years ago as Minister for the Armed Forces to the children's hospital at Mekele in Ethiopia at the height of the famine. The press dubbed the children there as the "Belsen babes". For once the press may have indulged in understatement. I suspect that at Belsen the SS, with their grim attention to efficiency, would have ensured that the children there did not suffer malnutrition to the point at which they were no longer able to walk to their deaths.
The children that I saw in Mekele had long since lost the capacity to walk. The malnutrition that they suffered had resulted in the total wastage of their body muscles to the point at which they could no longer move. The worst cases lay there unable to turn over, raise an arm or a hand or even move their heads. Children of 10 and 11 lay there with faces of 70 or 80-year-olds. They were living, inert skeletons. One wondered at the appalling pain and agony that they must have suffered to reach that state of total body decay yet still be alive.
Happily, during the same visit, I saw many other children in a very different condition. Those were the children in the food distribution centres. They ran about, shouted, jostled and played and they had laughter instead of agony in their eyes. For those children relief had come in time. In 1984–85, when the relief arrived, the distribution was carried out extremely well and eventually the food arrived in abundance. I do not accept the criticisms made by the hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) about the scale of the British contribution when the relief arrived five years ago. Our operation was carried out with conspicuous skill and efficiency by our armed services.
The inescapable fact was, however, that five years ago our contribution and that of every other western developed country came too late for the many who died and for the very many who will suffer permanent handicaps in their bones and joints for the rest of their lives as a result of serious malnutrition in childhood.
What will be the outlook for the children and adults of Ethiopia in the weeks and months ahead? In the early months of 1990, will we see large numbers of so-called "Belsen babes" as I saw at Mekele hospital five years ago, or will we see children who have been spared the ravages of malnutrition as a result of a satisfactory programme of food aid? Hon. Members on both sides of the House fervently trust that we will see only the latter group of children and adults.
I urge Ministers to make every possible effort to ensure that the British contribution is sufficient and do everything in their power to ensure that it gets through. In our modern world of affluence in Europe, North America and Australasia, with speedy delivery of food supplies, there should be no question but that famine should be part of the history books. There should be no place for mass famine in the modern world. It is unacceptable and intolerable that any group of people in any country should be allowed to starve to death.

Sir Russell Johnston: The right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Malling (Sir J. Stanley) made an extremely moving speech which was compelling in its honesty and force. I have not seen the sights that he described, except on television, but I can well believe that they must leave a deep scar which nothing can remove. If the right hon. Gentleman had been talking with the authority of a Minister, I would not be contemplating voting for the official Opposition motion tonight.
I understand that a fair estimate of the position in Ethiopia is that some 4 million people are at risk of starvation between now and the end of March, and, more urgently, between 800,000 and 850,000 are at risk of starvation between now and the end of January. That is the scale and proportion of the problem. As a number of hon. Members have said, that is pretty horrific.
What can we effectively do? The Minister referred to an article in The Independent today about the statement by President Moi of Kenya that he had
asked President Mengistu … of Ethiopia to accept opening the corridors … He has accepted.
The Minister said that the Government have no firm confirmation of that. Obviously, it is difficult to press the Minister further. As an opposition Member, I find it difficult to understand how the Kenyan head of state can be reported as making that categorical statement without our Government being able to confirm whether it is true. Obviously, if it is true, it is excellent news.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: As I understood the reports, it was a question of its being conditional on other things happening. The problem is whether those conditions are being met.

Sir Russell Johnston: The report, which inevitably has been abbreviated, said that President Moi had asked the "rebel" leaders in Tigray and Eritrea to do the same—whether one should call them rebels is a matter for discussion. In other words, there would be a ceasefire, as the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said. The overland routes can be opened without a ceasefire.
The Minister of State said, as has the Minister for Overseas Development previously—I hope that the right hon. Member for Wallasey (Mrs. Chalker) will soon recover from her flu—that the Government had been using a lot of diplomatic pressure. On 4 December 1989, the Minister for Overseas Development said that Britain was stepping up
our continuing diplomatic efforts with the United States, the Soviet Union, our European Community partners, certain Arab countries."—[Official Report, 4 December 1989: Vol. 163, c. 19.]
and so on. How seriously are the Government pursuing those efforts? Are they simply official-to-official talks or are they Minister-to-Minister talks? What is the objective of this pressure? The Minister was right to say that the Soviet Union was central to the matter. The Soviet Union is in a much more responsive mood than she has been since perhaps the war.

Mr. Jim Lester: When the four of us visited Ethiopia to produce the report, which has been widely quoted, we talked to the Soviet ambassador in Addis Ababa and made the same remarks that had been made consistently year in, year out, about applying pressure to all three protagonists. The ambassador said, "We do all that we can, but you


must remember that the Ethiopians are a proud people." No one can instruct a sovereign Government to do what we want, even though all of us are willing these changes to happen.

Sir Russell Johnston: I take that point. The Ethiopians are a proud people and it is not possible to instruct them on what to do. But we can turn off the weapons tap. President Mengistu needs the weapons and he gets them from the Soviet Union. We should remember the involvement of other eastern European countries. As I understand it, the police services are run by the Bulgarians and military intelligence by the East Germans. Other eastern European peoples are involved. The Saudis are the essential people to the Tigray People's Liberation Front and the Eritreans. It is a matter not just of having discussions with the individual Governments involved but of finding a way to bring them together. The British Government would make a valuable contribution if they tried to get the interested parties together—the Russians, the eastern Europeans, the Saudis and the European Community—to offer a guarantee on the movement of food into these areas. One should not forget that in 1984 or 1985 a United Nations convoy was blown up by the Tigray forces because they suspected that it was an armed convoy, although it was not.

Mr. Lester: It was 1987–88.

Sir Russell Johnston: I am sorry—that happened in 1987–88. Although inevitably we are concentrating on President Mengistu, free movement depends not just on him but on the co-operation of others, as the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester) said. Obviously, a monitored ceasefire would be much better, but a solution can be found in other ways.
The hon. Members for Cynon Valley and for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) said that people were determined that the famine would not return after 1984–85, but that it has. The civil war is the main reason—if it is a civil war, because it can be argued that it is a liberation war—but there are other contributory factors, one of which is the British Government's reluctance to use the internal distribution system in Tigray and Eritrea. It has been argued that the money could be used for other purposes and the food used in the wrong way, but the circumstances are such that risk should be taken. Indeed, it should have been taken.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West said that there was insufficient investment following the 1984–85 famine. Rehabilitation of the areas was inadequate. There was no proper replenishiment of, for example, the oxen stock. I am told—I do not know whether it is right or wrong—that one reason was that the Overseas Development Administration persuaded the European Community not to back any such scheme. If that is true, I should like confirmation.
I believe that refugees are pouring into the eastern region of the Sudan and that the Sudanese commission for refugees believes that 2,000 people have crossed during the past I 1 days. There are supposed to be 1 million refugees in the region, which has a total population of only 4 million. Although aid agencies are helping, United Nations aid has been cut dramatically from £52 million in 1985 to £8 million this year. Are the Government apprised of the situation and what are they doing to alleviate the problem?
I am not saying that the British Government have done nothing—that is untrue. In many areas, they have done a great deal. Nevertheless, their response has been inadequate in both financial and political pressure terms—1 suppose for all the reasons of the heart which were expressed so vividly by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing. For that reason, we will support the motion.

Mr. Jim Lester: I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), and I echo every sentiment that he expressed. Some of us have had the sad opportunity to follow the subject of famine in Ethiopia since the first famine there. I well remember scenes similar to those that my right hon. Friend described. I remember the way in which the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs first drafted its report. It is not fair to say that we criticised the amount of money that the Government gave or the way in which they gave it. Our principal criticism of the Government was that that £90 million came from the ODA's contingency fund. We recommended that it should have come from the Government's contingency fund.
We criticised the speed of operation, the inability to co-ordinate, and the European Community's long-winded procedures. I am satisfied that, as a result of those criticisms, we now have a much better system. The report from which the hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) quoted referred to the way in which famine was averted because things had changed and the delivery systems worked.
Until recently, all four members of the group who went to the area were in the Chamber. The hon. Members for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) and for Doncaster, North (Mr. Welsh), my hon. Friend the Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) and I travelled widely in Tigray and Eritrea. We saw how a food distribution system can work on a sensible basis. People were encouraged to collect food on a once-a-month basis and stay in their villages, so that they could take advantage of the upturn when it came. As the hon. Member for Cynon Valley quoted, we warned in stark terms that this was only a temporary position and that it could only be a temporary position. We also warned that another famine would occur because of the reasons that we spelled out in that telling paragraph.
As the hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) said, we use the relief organisations of both the Tigray People's Liberation Front and the Eritrean People's Liberation Front. They are the people who receive the food that comes down the route from Port Sudan. We are talking not about the fact that they have food to distribute, but about the fact that we are not giving them money to buy food within their own communities unless we can monitor it satisfactorily. It would be wrong, therefore, to say that we do not use every possible method to meet the need.
In our first report, we gave the greatest credit to the Overseas Development Administration, and especially to its disaster relief operation, because of its knowledge and its ability to move quickly. I am sure that that ability has become greater rather than less recently. I reject the criticism that we are not competent, that the ODA cannot move quickly enough and that we do not care. We care


enormously about ensuring that the mistakes of the past have been learnt and that we can operate quickly and efficiently.
We saw food distribution as it should be carried out in 1987–88, but we warned that nothing had changed basically and that if nothing changed, there would be a greater famine in future years. It is a great tragedy that we now see that prospect. However, some things have changed. There has been an overall change in the strategic position, as other hon. Members have mentioned, and the rains have failed for three years out of the past four. However, in Tigray and Eritrea, one basic element has not changed. I want to draw the attention of the House to our last report in which we said that the three protagonists made the relief operation second to their military and political objectives. That remains the most critical matter. However much the world bleeds and however much we try to find ways to get food to distribute, until that is changed we are doomed to difficulty.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West and I travelled on the aeroplane from Mekele to Asmara. There was an available road and there was food in store coming from Massawa to Asmara, but the last bit of road was part of the war zone. The international community mounted at enormous cost—with money that could far better have been spent in rehabilitation, in building micro dams and in helping the local community to grow food—a massive airlift. We sat on the aeroplane that was bringing food down so that Mekele would not starve. Mekele is now part of the TPLF territory, as is the whole area. It is not possible to mount such an operation again.
We are all anxious to know whether there has been a breakthrough as a result of the efforts of President Moi. I want to pay a special tribute to the President of Kenya and to his officials who have done a great deal of background work to try to bring the talks in Nairobi to a successful conclusion. We should try to do everything we can to assist and to build on what President Moi said, so that we can see whether corridors can be created through which to bring food. From what has been said already, I understand that none of us has up-to-date information, but I am sure that President Moi would not have made a statement if he had not achieved something.
I talked to representatives of the EPLF yesterday. It was a difficult interview because of the suspicions, the qualifications and the issuing of counter-reports, which are always in their minds, and the situation is still fraught with suspicion. We have only to consider the efforts of ex-President Carter in Nairobi. He achieved a declaration, the establishment of a co-chairman and the establishment of seven observers, but immediately after he had achieved all that and made an announcement, one of the protagonists issued a counter-statement saying that he did not agree with everything that he had just signed with ex-President Carter. I use that example to show how fraught with difficulty the problem is and how the suspicions run deep among the three protagonists.
The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber mentioned the convoy. We saw the convoy that was supposed to be being used by the Ethiopian Government as a military convoy. The convoy consisted of white lorries with the United Nations flag painted on the doors. The convoy could not have been used—or even been seen to

have been used—for military purposes, yet it was shot up and the food was burnt for purely military, tactical reasons. Nobody can claim that that was a mistake or that the Mengistu Government were using those lorries for false purposes. I use those examples to show that, however much we care and however much money we vote, the position on the ground, the degradation and the problems of the infrastructure are still the major difficulties in solving the problem.
I suggest to my right hon. and hon. Friends on the Front Bench that one of the ways in which we might make progress is to use the International Red Cross, which has done sterling work in Ethiopia. If it was not for its efforts, the problems of the first famine in Eritrea and Tigray would never have been met. The International Red Cross was quiet about it and we still have to be careful about such sensitive matters, but it carried the principal weight and fed the cross-border operation.
The irony is that in the potential second famine, which was averted, the International Red Cross saw that the best place from which to operate to feed the people was on the other side of the border. As a result, it was immediately called a traitor and condemned. How can anyone say that of the International Red Cross? It has done a marvellous job in the Sudan in a similar civil war, with the help of James Grant. I hope that if we cannot bring about a ceasefire, which is a dream in a sense, we can at least, following the initiative of President Moi, achieve an agreement on food corridors and for food to be carried by the International Red Cross. No one in the world could imagine that the International Red Cross would be allowed to be used for tactical or military advantage.
I am sure that the Government and my right hon. and hon. Friends the Ministers, whom I recognise to be involved and caring people, will do all that is necessary to match the British effort to the need. I am sure that the fact that our own ambassador in Addis Ababa co-ordinates the European effort is important. He has been there a long time and he is incredibly knowledgeable. I am sure that we shall meet the need in every possible way that we can within the physical limitations.
However, we must bring home clearly the fact that, however much we realise, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing said, that nobody should starve in our world of plenty, we cannot rely consistently on the most costly form of relief which is, of course, the cross-border operation involving bringing food into Port Sudan, shipping it down through the Sudan and carrying it over the most immensely difficult terrain that anyone can imagine. If any hon. Member had seen the Mercedes lorries that had been driven for only six months in the relief operation, he would have thought that they had been driven for 600 years as a result of the battering in the terrible terrain which they had to cross.
We cannot rely consistently on providing the most costly form of relief while the protagonists carry out an internecine war with military objectives that override their people's welfare. That is the real message of the Select Committee report, and that is the real message that we should still pass on to the three protagonists, whatever and from wherever the diplomatic effort.
I know that, as a result of our previous report, the Foreign and Commonwealth Office sent out about 35 telegrams to try to mobilise all possible international diplomatic effort to bring the three groups together, as we now know, in two separate parties. When we were in Rome


only 10 days ago, one of the major subjects that we discussed with Senator Agnelli, who is responsible for this area, was how the talks would be conducted in Rome between the TPLF and the Mengistu Government.
We have seen a change in the British aid effort as a result of our report. Until we went in 1987–88, we had a firm policy of giving no assistance other than humanitarian relief. Our report suggested that that was a nonsensical approach. The lack of water was the main reason why agricultural communities could not grow food. We said that, if we could guarantee that the money would not go to the Government or to the protagonists, it made a lot of sense to support non-governmental organisations in building micro-dams and in small projects to bring relief to communities. I am happy to say that the Minister accepted that argument and we have been pursuing that policy ever since—subject, of course, to the overall military consequences of bombing and fighting, which undo the work of the communities, who build the dams themselves, realising that it is in their interests to do so.
There are two other causes for concern in Ethiopia. The first is the situation of the Somali refugees in Hararghe in the south-east. Their circumstances have become increasingly difficult and their state increasingly unsatisfactory. The second is the plight of the Sudanese refugees in the south-west. Some of us have visited the camps there and have been greatly disturbed to find 350,000 people living in such inadequate conditions.
This is an important debate, and its message is a good message—that we are genuinely concerned. I do not join the hon. Member for Cynon Valley in her criticism of the Government and their operation. I am sure that they have learnt a great deal and that this debate will ensure that they are very much on their toes as events unfold.
I have one last message to leave with the House. One of Ethiopia's tragedies is that is has remained one of the five poorest countries in the world, just as it was one of the five poorest countries in the world in 1960. Yet, given a civilised Government with the desire to liberate the talents of their people, Ethiopia would have tremendous potential. In spite of deforestation and the terrible problems in the north, 82 per cent. of Ethiopia is capable of profitable and full development. It is on such development—and away from the internecine war—that we should try to focus the Ethiopians' attention.

Mr. George Galloway: I sympathise with the Minister of State, who is not in his place at the moment, because this is the second time in just a few weeks that he has been dragged to the House to defend the indefensible. On the first ocasion he sought to defend the Government's policy in Cambodia, which we regard as beyond belief. On this occasion, he is defending the Government's response to the famine, which could be described as "too little, too slow." I shall deal in detail with the extent to which it is too little and too slow, but first I give the Minister my sympathy, because his is one of the more acceptable faces in this hard-faced Government. That is why he is dragged out to do the dirty work, in the hope that he may be able to place some kind of gloss on the situation.
In response to the hon. Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), let me say that this is in no sense a criticism, of the Minister for Overseas Development, still less of the

officials at the Overseas Development Administration. The Minister and her officials do their very best within the prison of parsimony in which the Government's hard-faced approach has them well and truly incarcerated. Let no one say that we are criticising the fine officials in the ODA who are doing their best within severe limitations to put all hands on deck.
Like the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I am a veteran of the previous famine in Ethiopia. I went to the Library to dig out some articles that I wrote for the Spectator and The Sunday Times on my return from a visit to Ethiopia. Only then did it strike me that it is virtually five years to the day since I walked among the carnage that that famine visited on those in the killing fields not only of Ethiopia but of Eritrea, Sudan, Chad, Mali and other countries in the belt of Africa that suffered the drought of 1984–85. The memory of those events is seared on the mind of anyone who has stooped and held the hands of children who have died for want of a crust of bread a matter of hours later. It is a greatly humbling experience.
Let me make a positive point. I hope that one of the effects of this debate will be to concentrate the minds of the British public and the media on the desperate need to give in this Christmas period. Whatever the Government's response may be, we shall need the public to dig as deeply into their pockets as they have in the past if we are to ensure the necessary response.
As I reread the articles that I had written, I was struck by the dreadful and grim familiarity of the events that are now unfolding. We have the same place names, the same dreadful routes down which aid lorries have to trundle in the night to avoid the bombing and strafing that the war involves. We have the same numbers of people, and we hear of the same crops being necessary. There is a grim sense of deja vu for anyone who was involved in 1984–85.
There seems to be some surprise—I suspect that it is feigned—from Conservative Members at the fact that the Opposition have tabled a motion that is critical of the Government. I believe that that motion should be supported because it is fully justified. The Minister made much of the figures—whether £2 million extra or £13 million—and of what had been done in a particular week after a particular point of order had been raised. The Government say that they have presided over what the former Chancellor used to call an economic miracle. A Government who make such a claim must find it difficult to come to the House and justify a steady reduction in the percentage of our GNP that we are giving in oveseas aid. Any Government who seek to pay off the national debt and give tax handouts to the best-off in our society, as this Government have, must find it difficult to justify giving such small sums—whether £2 million or £13 million—when millions of people are in danger of dying of starvation.
It is useful to look at the figures. Last year Ethiopia received a grand total of $15 per head of population in development assistance from the world community. Compare that with Botswana, for example, which received $92 per head of population and Somalia, which received $94 per head. Yet those countries can hardly be regarded as rolling in money or as being over-generously treated.
Ethiopia is a special case in a number of ways, one of which is the abysmally low level of development assistance that it has received from the international community. The Minister rightly praised the response of the public to the


previous famine. It is true that people voted with their cheque books for Africa and Ethiopia during that famine—in unprecedented numbers and to an unprecedented extent. But, at the same time, the Government voted with their parliamentary majority steadily to reduce the percentage of gross national product that goes in overseas aid. That is a disgrace.
Other hon. Members have sketched the scale of the danger, and I shall not reiterate their remarks except to say that it is estimated that by January—only a few short weeks from now—4 million people will be in need of emergency food. Some 600,000 tonnes of food aid is required, but only a third of that has been pledged. Wealth and food in abundance exists in the North and West and the situation must be tackled urgently.
The need for trucks has been mentioned. Some 700 trucks will be needed to carry food, and I hope that the British can do something about that. In the past, they have been generous. I hope that we can step up that aid.
Above all, we must stop the flight away from the land, over the borders and into refugee camps. One of the worst scenes that I have ever witnessed was at the refugee camp at Wad Kowli in Ethiopia, near the Sudanese border. I visited the camp twice in 1985. Some 40,000 people were living and many were dying there. It was a sea of tuberculosis, coughing, disease, malnutrition and death. When people fled from their land in the hope of receiving some meagre relief in such camps, the seeds were sown for such disasters, or rather the seeds were not sown, because they had fled from the land. If water came, nothing could be done with it because the people who husbanded the land had been forced to flee to survive.
During the last famine, I was the general secretary of War on Want. That organisation was one of the most strident voices in the whole world, saying that we should lay a substantial proportion of the responsibility for those events at the door of the Mengistu regime. That remains true today. The disastrous policies of the Dergue and its failure to resolve the outstanding questions of nationalities and the Eritrean people are a major cause of the problem. However, the Dergue is not the only cause.
I should like to disabuse some of my hon. Friends, because the columns advancing on Addis Ababa under the banner of the TPLF are not knights on white chargers who will radically alter the course of events in Ethiopia for the better. The political programme of the TPLF is, if anything, worse than that of the Ethiopian Government.
In an excellent report in The Independent on 28 November 1989, Richard Dowden was told by the chairman of the TPLF that the Soviet Union and other Eastern bloc countries have never been truly Socialist:
The nearest any country comes to being socialist as far as we are concerned is Albania".
Anyone who thinks of swapping the Stalinist school of agriculture of President Mengistu for the Albanian school of agriculture and economics of the TPLF is making a serious mistake. Peace and negotiations are needed in Ethiopia. No one should be giving blank cheques of any kind to the TPLF.
The Eritrean case is different, as it is not a civil war. Ethiopia is occupying the territory of Eritrea and it should be given independence as soon as possible.
I am conscious of the need to be brief, so I shall bring my speech to a close with a couple of reflections. While

Mengistu and drought are major problems, the fundamental cause of the famine, as in the rest of the Third world, is not dictatorships or the weather, but grinding poverty. As my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) said, one quarter of the world's population is afflicted by what the United Nations describes as absolute poverty. I read a striking article in The Guardian entitled "Children 'die as money goes on debt and arms'", which said that, in its annual statement on the world's children, UNICEF—the United Nations Children's Fund—reported:
40,000 children are dying each day—nearly one every two seconds. Of those, nearly 8,000 die because they have not been immunised, nearly 7,000 from dehydration caused by diarrhoea, and nearly as many again from pneumonia.
At the same time Third world countries are paying out enormous sums of money on armaments to fight petty grim little wars, which are often fuelled by the superpowers—or less than superpowers like us—who sell them the armaments and on debt payments.
It is worth remembering that in the year of Band Aid Third world countries paid back more in interest than they received in total overseas aid from all the Governments and all the people of the world.
Grim, unrelenting fatally desperate poverty afflicts Ethiopia and is a fundamental problem in the Third world. Until we solve that problem we shall return to debates like this time and again.

Mr. Tony Baldry: This debate has been characterised by the fact that almost everyone who has taken part has spoken with real knowledge of the subject and some first-hand experience of Ethiopia. I welcome the opportunity to take part as I went to Ethiopia in 1985 with the hon. Members for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) and for Roxburgh and Berwickshire (Mr. Kirkwood). We went under the auspices of the Save the Children Fund and Oxfam. Like anyone who visited Ethiopia that year, and like my right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), I was struck by the need to express the dimensions of the catastrophe which faces thousands of people in Ethiopia. However, I am not confident that we can find the right words to express the disaster that they face.
Anyone who visited Ethiopia during the last famine has memories that are for ever etched on their minds. For me, the picture that almost gives me nightmares is a plain which, as far as the eye can see, is brown and arid, covered with rocks rather than green and verdant. The plain is not empty but full of people who are literally bones and rags. Thousands of them were camped out on the plain at Mekele with little or no food or shelter. During the day, the sun beats down remorselessly, but at night it is near freezing. There is an even more poignant and horrific memory. UNICEF has had a feeding programme in Mekele for a long time. It had enough food only for a limited number of children, who were kept in a compound and fed daily. Outside a large number of children looked over the wall, watching the children who were part of the feeding programme. The children outside the wall were without food, shelter or comfort. That memory was not a nightmare—unfortunately, it was the truth, and it was called Mekele.
As we have heard today, those circumstances will almost certainly return, and thousands of men, women


and children will die unnecessarily of starvation. When we went to Mekele, Cardinal Hume by chance was with us, and I remember him, or perhaps someone else, saying as we looked numbly at that plain full of people:
The foxes have holes and the birds of the air have nests, but these people have absolutely nothing.
Some two million people are again threatened with famine. It would be comforting to be able to assert that the problems could be solved by a massive injection of food aid in the short term, and by further increases in development aid in the longer term. Heaven knows, Ethiopia's problems are bad enough when the harvest does not fail—even in a year of good harvest there is a substantial food shortfall. Per capita food production has declined steadily as the rate of population growth has substantially outpaced improvements in agriculture. Ethiopia is one of the poorest countries in the world, if not the poorest. Food production lags further behind food needs. Even when the harvest succeeds, Ethiopia has problems. Worse than that, not only is Ethiopia gripped by famine, but it is gripped by civil war, and by a cruel twist of fate the area where the civil conflict is worst is the area where the drought is most intense. There have been total crop failures in large parts of Eritrea and Tigray this year.
It would be comforting in such circumstances to look for heroes and villains. Mengistu is a tyrant who has spent more than 80 per cent. of his country's pitiful income on ever more arms to prosecute civil wars. Some £3 billion worth of arms has been bought from the Soviet Union in the past few years. It is worth contemplating that figure. Insanely, ports such as Massawa and Assab, which could be used to import food, are closed on Mengistu's orders. The Ethiopian air force Mig fighters regularly bomb and strafe the roads to Tigray and Eritrea—the very roads on which the relief convoys should be travelling. This is not a story of villains and heroes because, as the hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) said, the other protagonists in these conflicts are not completely innocent. Tragically, all the protagonists in the internal conflict have used food aid as a military and political weapon.
The Select Committee on Foreign Affairs produced an excellent report which I hope that all right hon. and hon. Members will read. It went to Ethiopia in 1988 and reported 1,500 men of the EPLF attacking a United Nations convoy carrying food supplies on the road from Asmara. The trucks were clearly marked and painted white, but they were destroyed by grenades and rockets and the food was burnt. That and other attacks were clearly carried out to tie the Ethiopian army to protecting the roads and to attempt to force the United Nations and other relief agencies to accept the EPLF's proposals for carrying out relief work in Eritrea. The same can be said for the TPLF, which wants to demonstrate de facto control over certain areas by the use of food aid, just as the Ethiopian Government want to use hunger to force people out of what they regard as rebel-held areas.
No headway can be made until the civil wars come to an end. No side can hope to achieve military victory. Using food as a political weapon will not provide any solutions. Tragically, the Ethiopian army, the EPLF and the TPLF have all put politics before relief, and the prospect of military advantage ahead of the lives of their own people. It is time to end that insanity.
All possible civilised international, diplomatic and political pressure must be brought to bear, through the

United Nations, from the Soviet Union and from the European Community, to prevent further arms sales to the protagonists in Ethiopia, to persuade the Ethiopians to open their ports and adapt an open-roads policy which would allow the free passage of food throughout Ethiopia, and to enable the United Nations world food programme and the relief agencies to get food as urgently as possible to those who need it.
I appreciate that it is the role of the Opposition to oppose, but by tabling the motion that they put down for this debate they have chosen the wrong target and the wrong arguments. Through bilateral and Community channels, Britain's emergency food aid to Ethiopia has totalled more than £54 million since January 1987 and more than £138 million since January 1985. So far this year, 17,000 tonnes of food aid have been pledged. In opening the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister confirmed that further emergency contributions would be made in response to the worsening situation.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) sought to make play of a letter published in The Independent from the director of the Save the Children Fund. I am president of the Banbury branch of the Save the Children Fund and a keen supporter of its work. When I read that letter in The Independent I was disappointed because, as my right hon. Friend the Minister for Overseas Development made clear to the House on 4 December, it was in the offices of the Save the Children Fund that she and representatives of other non-governmental organisations drew up their contingency plans for how the Save the Children Fund and other members of the Disaster Emergency Committee could help in the unfolding situation in Ethiopia. I recently met the secretary of the Disaster Emergency Committee at the annual meeting of the Anglo-Ethiopian Society and there was no scintilla of criticism about the way in which my right hon. Friend the Minister and the Overseas Development Administration had been handling the situation so far.
As my right hon. Friend made clear on 4 December, Britain has been at the forefront of numerous diplomatic initiatives to improve the situation in Ethiopia. My right hon. Friend has clearly taken every opportunity here, in Rome, in Washington, in Brussels and in Paris to seek to persuade the international community to act together. That was reinforced by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister at the recent summit in Strasbourg where the Community Heads of Government made it clear in their communiqué to the Soviet Union that they very much hoped that the Soviet Union would use all its power and influence and apply pressure in Addis Ababa to help to end the civil conflict and to stem the flow of arms to the protagonists.
The problem cannot be solved by Britain or any one country alone. It has to be solved by the whole international community. I very much hope that, having heard the debate, the Opposition will decide not to divide the House because this is not a subject upon which we should be divided. The subject is so tragic and horrific that the House should be united. If the House is united, the various diplomatic and other initiatives that this country takes will have a far greater chance of succeeding. If we are seen to be divided, it will be far easier for those in Ethiopia and elsewhere who choose to be deaf to what we say to turn a deaf ear to what we want to tell them. We want to


tell them and the world that there is no reason on God's earth why, in the latter part of the 20th century, millions of people should face starvation.

Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I shall try to be brief, because I realise that several other Members wish to speak in this short debate.
I cannot go along with the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry) in his defence of the Government. It seems indefensible for the Government to have been cutting the proportion of our gross domestic product that goes in overseas aid. I find it extremely difficult to justify that to my constituents or to anyone else in the civilised world. If the Government want us to have any sympathy with their problems, they should take the earliest possible opportunity to restore the proportion of our aid at least to its 1979 level, and should steadily aim towards the United Nations' target.
I accept that the hon. Member for Banbury was in Ethiopia at the same time as me. I recognise the pictures that he has recounted to the House, as I did those drawn by the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) and my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway). I still have nightmares about the scenes I saw in Ethiopia at the height of the famine.
I have another memory. I also went to Ethiopia in 1981. I went up to the north, in Karin, and visited the British war graves there. Like most war graves, they reminded me of those who lost their lives in the second world war. I was struck by the fact that they were scarred by bullets from further conflicts. Since 1981, those graveyards in Karin have been fought over another four times.
Ethiopia has suffered 60 years of almost continuous conflict. It is scarred by famine, but it is also scarred by those 60 years of war. Almost all those wars have been not totally Ethiopian affairs but affairs encouraged by people outside Ethiopia. Large world powers have fought out their battles in Ethiopia. It is one of the tragedies of Ethiopia that so often the wars fought there have been fought either directly by world powers or in proxy for them.
I hope that we can bring some relief to the people in Ethiopia. However, the only possible relief for Ethiopia will be if we can bring peace to that country. When a war is being fought, it is impossible to persuade people to fight nicely so that they do not use starvation as one of the weapons. Starvation is just another nasty example of the weapons of war.
My message is firm: the only way to improve the position in Ethiopia is to achieve peace. I would argue strongly that the Government should place much more emphasis on diplomatic efforts to bring about peace in Ethiopia. We should try to ensure that there is an arms embargo. No country should be prepared to supply arms to any of the protagonists.
We cannot apportion blame or virtue to any of the people in Ethiopia. They are all to blame, because at some point each group of people in Ethiopia has had the opportunity to negotiate for peace. However, almost every time, some group has felt that it was on the verge of

outright victory and has therefore been reluctant to participate in negotiations. Then the tide of war has swung against it, and it has been in no position to negotiate.
We must find a solution in Ethiopia which produces some federal forum to give all groups the opportunity for independence and self-government for their part of the country, but also gives them an overall pattern to establish a position in which the three or four major groups can live peacefully without resorting to conflict, and without people from outside encouraging conflict. I hope that the Government will use all their powers to encourage an arms embargo and will encourage in every possible way the talks that are taking place between the three protagonists to bring about a lasting peace.
If the open-road initiative that was announced by the President of Kenya is embarked upon, we must see it only as the first step to a lasting peace. If that open-road policy is accepted by all the parties, it must be backed by getting food through quickly. As my hon. Friends have said, it is important to encourage people to stay in their own villages and not to go to camps or elsewhere in search of food. The only way to encourage people to stay in their villages is to convince them that food will arrive. The only way to do that is for people to see the food being moved quickly. If the open-road policy is implemented, it should be possible to move food quickly by road. The world powers will also have to look at the possibility of an air lift, at least in the short term, in order to convince people that food will arrive.
Ethiopia is a beautiful country; as Conservative Members have said, it has great potential; but while it suffers from war and famine, there will be no opportunity to realise that potential. The first priority is to stop the war. When that is done, there will be a chance to tackle the famine in the short term. After that, we must look at long-term aid which can release the potential of the country.

Miss Emma Nicholson: I must declare an interest in this sad project. I was director of fund raising for the Save the Children Fund in the last major famine in 1984–85. My brother-in-law is the overseas director of Oxfam, and my father-in-law is generally credited with having founded the Overseas Development Administration.
The Government have given generously so far in this latest Ethiopian crisis, but whether the amount is £2 million or £13 million, more is needed. Of that £2 million, £800,000 went to Oxfam and I think that a bit more went to the Save the Children Fund. However, in the next three months Oxfam has budgeted to spend £5 million and the Save the Children Fund budgets to spend approximately the same. Those are the largest United Kingdom agencies in Ethiopia at the moment, but of course there is also Christian Aid, the Catholic Fund for Overseas Development and the Co-operative for American Relief Everywhere. Other tiny agencies are also putting in the largest amounts that they can. That, of course, is linked to the enormous expenditure of the World Food Programme and the Food and Agriculture Organisation of the United Nations.
The public response in Britain to the latest appeal is fascinating. It is the most generous response ever to the Disasters Emergency Committee. In the first seven days of


the appeal, £1·3 million has been counted and that is the largest amount ever raised by the committee. Much of that came by way of credit card donations. The Save the Children Fund is the co-ordinator and there are sacks of cash waiting to be counted. That means that the total for the first seven days will be much larger than £1·3 million.
The generosity of the public is amazing, especially in the light of the huge response to the recent BBC Children in Need appeal and, of course, the phrase, "Charity begins at home" is very compelling. In addition, there are all the normal Christmas appeals that occur in mid and late December. It is worth remembering that British people are the second or third most generous individual donors in the world, beaten only by people in the Netherlands and the United States of America.
Raising money always seems difficult at the beginning, but the generosity of the British people makes it relatively easy. However, spending it is a truly difficult task. In the 1984–85 famine 60 per cent. of the European Community grain donation rotted on the docks in Djibouti. Food aid is notorious for devastating local farming. That is why our simple method of teaching Ethiopian farmers how to alter the plough to use one ox instead of two, which was a British innovation, may mean more in the long run than any great tonnage of food.
Food aid is also notorious for encouraging people to flee from their homes to where the food is being distributed. At present people are not in camps in northern Ethiopia, but they certainly were during the previous famine and a cholera epidemic started as a result. Afterwards they do not return home or they return to untilled land. It is worth remembering that two thirds of the fertile land in Ethiopia is not farmed at all due to the political problems.
Also food aid irrevocably alters people's dietary tastes. Ethiopians have gained a taste for wheat which is far more nutritious than the grain that they previously ate. Wheat is contra-indicated in high, wet areas such as Ethiopia, which is mountainous, too. That is why the Israelis and the Weissmann institute have developed a grain which will grow in those climatic conditions.
Food aid is difficult to manage in a way that is helpful to the people at whom it is aimed. A country at war offers irrevocable logistical difficulties.
It was said earlier that the British people had been generous in giving to Band Aid, but Band Aid expenditure—and that is what matters—was immensely difficult to organise. Hon. Members will recall the pictures of rusting trucks. Where did that money go? Was it honestly well spent as the Ethiopian people would see it? Hon. Members will recall that even non-governmental organisations have not been effective spenders. Why is War on Want no longer a member of the Disasters Emergency Committee? The answer is that it, too, had massive difficulties in managing good expenditure of Disasters Emergency Committee funds.
The political difficulties are seemingly impassable. I suggest that unless the Soviet glasnost effort is extended to eradicating Mr. Mengistu from the Ethiopian Government, there will be no open road. It will remain as mythical as the golden road to Samarkand. Between 40 and 60 Save the Children and Oxfam trucks waiting to use those open roads will still be waiting.
Nothing that the Ethiopian Government have done since the first famine of 1973–74 has helped. Each time the effect of the famine on people worsens. This time the

famine is worse than in 1987 but not as bad as 1984. It enters a country that has suffered centuries of land neglect and where the drought is worse each time against a particularly impoverished environmental backdrop. People's resistance is lower each time and their response to starvation is more feeble. All that is in the context of a gross national product for all black African countries south of the Sahara which is identical to that of Belgium. Spending wisely in that context of total poverty is not easy.
The Government are to be congratulated on their intelligent application of funds. It has started well. The Overseas Development Administration is an extremely efficient, world-renowned organisation. We are most fortunate in the tremendous service that is given by that part of the Government.
The Government must now adopt a Morton's fork approach. On the political front they must pursue an open-roads policy by all the means available. I suggest that they get in touch with the Soviet Government as fast as possible. However, on the practical side they must recognise that it is unlikely that the open-roads policy will come about. The cross-border tactics that NGOs have had to use so often in these recent miserable years will once more be the only way to get food to Ethiopia. The Sudan offers a poor, dangerous, expensive and inappropriate route for the Government to use. That must mean more funding of agency work through the large voluntary organisations in the United Kingdom which can achieve it and less bilateral aid. The British Government cannot spend through the Ethiopian Government in their current political circumstances.
It is easy to stir consciences. Britain has a great history of generosity. But it is difficult to walk the tight rope of combining our outpourings of comparative wealth with care and appropriate expenditure, and with personal sensitivity to the great suffering that we continually witness in Ethiopia. We must allow these unfortunate people, who are crippled by warfare, to keep their dignity. Do not let us become vultures of compassion, peering at poverty on the small screen from comfortable armchairs. That is the challenge.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Comfortable armchairs and the opinions expressed from them may not always be acceptable, but the same is true of comfortable debates in this Chamber. When the reality of famine in Ethiopia faces us, it is absolutely right for my right hon. and hon. Friends to table motions such as this one. I proudly support it.
Christian Aid, not a politically motivated body, recently published a pamphlet in which it said:
For the last ten years official aid has been consistently lower in real terms than the level achieved in 1979.
What loyal Opposition could possibly accept that, pretend that there is consensus and do nothing? Problems of infrastructure undoubtedly exist, the war in Ethiopia is undoubtedly a great scar and the problems of food distribution undoubtedly exist, but we cannot allow the Government to get away with a fairly miserable contribution. We cannot endorse that.
I am sorry that the right hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Raison) is no longer in his place. I was more than surprised by his intervention. After all, it was he who argued in his famous open letter that time after time his Department was in opposition to the Treasury which, he


gave the impression, was mean-minded and at one with the Prime Minister. I should have thought that he would welcome this opportunity to criticise constructively the limited contribution that the Government are making.
Obviously, there have been harvest failures, droughts and war. Alas, they are not new. They were both predictable and predicted. Although I do not expect my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) to remember my speech, he will recall that in 1984 he and many other hon. Members drew attention to the appalling problems which then existed in Ethiopia. Since then the problems have scarcely changed. People, including those who were so generous and who will continue to be generous, must be asking why they are seeing on their television screens in 1989 the pictures which besmirched the international community in 1984. I was delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) repeated the need for a successful appeal.
We in the Labour party cannot go along with the Government's attitude. Spending cuts in the Department, reflecting Government policy, have been even more severe than elsewhere. We cannot pretend that the Prime Minister's attitude, popularly known as Thatcherism, is being applied to every Department except overseas aid, especially when the reality suggests that that is not the case.
The narrow political approach—which I regret is the attitude, although we would all wish otherwise—is evidenced by, for example, the figures that show that we give 40p per head to the people of Bangladesh as against £2,000 per head to people who happen to live in the Falklands. How can the Opposition accept those priorities? The Minister said that the gross national product was small under the Labour Government. We are entitled to argue that as the wealth of the nation grows, and as the GNP increases the national cake—and no one would dispute the fact that the standard of living has, on average, increased since 1984—it is reasonable in a caring society that a larger amount of that cake should be given to the millions of people in need.
The Henley Centre says such is the thrust of Government leadership in these matters that in its recent survey only 10 per cent. of people viewed world poverty as one of the major issues being faced today. Many view green environmental issues, important and profound as they are, as transcending other issues. Surely it is possible for all hon. Members, on both sides of the House, to have a well-based concern for the future of the planet while also being concerned to show commitment to the millions of people already living on this planet who are suffering from malnutrition, poverty and disease to an unacceptable extent in the modern world.
Some 750 million people experience absolute poverty, illiteracy, disease and malnutrition to an extent well beyond any standards of human decency acceptable to the British public. Therein lie the seeds of hatred and wars that could contaminate the future and which I believe could be so easily avoided. We are seeing on television the starving Eritreans, the ghost of Christmas present, but that need not be the case. It could be avoided and it represents a challenge to the consciences of all those in this modern world. It has been predicted; it can be dealt with.
I do not believe that apathy need always triumph. Starvation in Ethiopia represents the sort of lifestyle that, sadly, so many of our fellow citizens in this universe are now experiencing. We know of the unspeakable misery in the south China seas. We know that by 1992 the number of infants infected by AIDS in the sub-Saharan region will rise to 250,000. We know that now; there are things that we can do now. We should reflect the spirit and the generosity that I believe is shared by the British people.
Because I am passionately convinced that the Government, in their rather squalid approach to these matters, do not reflect the views of the people in this country or those of the international community towards international poverty, I shall vote against their amendment and, with pride, support the motion in the name of my right hon. and hon. Friends.

Mr. Donald Anderson: My hon. Friend the Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) has struck the right sombre and challenging note, as so many other hon. Members have done today. The debate has been based on the deep concern at the scale of the mounting tragedy in the Horn of Africa and Ethiopia in particular, with some poignant speeches, particularly from the right hon. Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley), the hon. Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), and my hon. Friends the Members for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway) and for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett).
There has been frustration at the lack of progress and at the fact that after the awful experiences of 1984 and 1985 yet another famine is looming in that sad part of the world. My hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) expressed so well the anger felt at the human reasons for the tragedy—the scale of the armed conflict, the civil wars that seem to go among elites over the great mass of the people, the victims of the tragedy in the area. There has also been perplexity at the way forward because of the multiplicity of problems in the area, natural and man-made.
If we are tempted to switch off and say that we are fed up with the fact that the tragedy is likely to recur, how much more reason do the victims of that tragedy have to be fed up with the fact that famine is with them yet again?
We cannot discount the fact that the problems in Ethiopia are now taking place in a harsher international context, with some evidence of compassion fatigue, despite what was said by the hon. Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson) about her experience and the evidence of the generosity of the British public in their response to the current appeal. I think not only of the recent UNICEF report mentioned by some hon. Members but also of the World Bank report with Mr. Conable's speech, not just drawing attention to the collective breast beating of the western community, saying that it is all our fault as a result of past colonialism, but pointing out factors relating to the countries themselves such as the vast expenditure on arms. For example, Ethiopia owes the Soviet Union in excess of $3 billion for arms purchases. In addition, there were rumours in the press on Sunday that, because of a deal on the Falashas, Israel may well be ready to replace the Soviet Union as a major arms supplier of that sad country. I hope that the Minister will say whether that rumour has any basis.
The World Bank report in September criticised what it elegantly called the "governance" of the countries of the Third world. But who can doubt that in Ethiopia, in addition to the natural problems of drought, so much blames lies at the door of Mr. Mengistu—a point made so graphically by my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, West? Equally, my hon. Friend the Member for Hillhead pointed out that the leaders of the TPLF are no great exemplars of human rights and the wish for democracy.
The basic facts are well known. They include the climatic factors, the erratic rainfall in the area, the increasing population, which adds to the pressure on land, the increase in soil degradation and the deforestation which has gathered pace since the turn of the century so that now Ethiopia's forest cover has been reduced from 40 per cent. at the turn of the century to 14 per cent. in 1970 and to but 4 per cent. today. In addition, there are the great sociological factors—the danger of community disintegration as people go to the food centres and farmers are unable to plant for the next year. There is an ever-increasing frequency of famine to the point where famine is not a cyclical problem but part of the chronic condition of that sad country.
We have heard the World Food Programme's estimate that 4 million people are threatened with famine by the end of January. I understand that the Minister suggested that there might be a large time scale, but if anything like that is threatened by the end of January, when we work back from January and look at the lead times in terms of procurement and delivery, we must surely recognise that the problem is with us now. If we are to make a serious impact on that problem, we must make the relevant decisions now.
The World Bank figures for 1987 show that Ethiopia is possibly the poorest country in the world. Clearly, long-term work needs to be done and that was shown in the Select Committee report last year. It is well known that work needs to be done on food security and storage, an improved distribution system, reforestation and water conservation. The key factors of time scale and transport were highlighted by the Minister. Knowing that people are facing almost immediate famine, how are we to get the necessary foodstuffs to them in the relevant time scale?
Will the Minister comment on the rumours over the past 24 hours or so about the open routes and the alleged speech by President Moi of Kenya? If President Moi is confident that there has been a substantial change by the Mengistu Government, it is puzzling that in the 24 hours that have elapsed the Government have not used the available communications to Nairobi to obtain further particulars for today's debate. Did President Moi make that speech, and what, if anything, was said about the small print and conditions? Given the track record of President Mengistu and the leaders of the rebels, can we believe that this is not just a stalling tactic in the civil war programme? I hope that the Minister who replies will tell us a little more about the speech of President Moi as it is fundamental to the possibility of getting food speedily to those in need.
We accept that as a country our leverage is relatively limited in that area. However, there is a widespread feeling that in this conflict, as in others in the Horn of Africa, the Government are being too traditional and are working only through the Governments of the day and in this instance through Addis Ababa. Surely, if the aim is to help those in dire need now, we have to use less orthodox

methods and be prepared to take all the risks that the Minister pointed out. We have to be prepared to work through the Relief Society for Tigray and the Eritrean Relief Association—the agencies on the spot with a good track record. We have to be prepared to work through the British agencies—the non-governmental organisations—which have such a good record on reaching those in need.
Hon. Members have already pointed out the difference historically and in terms of need of Eritrea, Tigray and to a lesser extent Wollo. They have pointed out that Eritrea can be reached through cross-border routes and that Tigray needs a more adventurous policy and the co-operation of the Governments concerned. The question is whether the food will get to those areas on time.
We have no doubt about the Minister's commitment and we regret that because of flu she is unable to be here today. We know that she is working within a cage imposed on her by the Prime Minister's policies over the past decade. Ministers for Overseas Development may have pressed at the bars, but the bars have been set by the Government's policies.
My hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) pointed out that the figures on the reduction of aid over the decade are well documented. They were given by my hon. Friend and speak for themselves as a measure of the reduction in the Government's commitment. The aid budget has been consistently sidelined at a time when the Government have been indulging in economic triumphalism and talking about economic miracles. Perhaps the new Chancellor of the Exchequer is less prone to indulge in talk of economic miracles, but that was his predecessor's theme.
We do not criticise the Government as strongly as we did in 1984–85. So much depended then on the generosity of the British people. It shamed the Government's niggardly response. However, what is beng done has to be set against a reduction in the overall aid budget. Hungry people need to be fed now if another major human tragedy in Ethiopia is to be averted.
We hope that the Government will follow a several-track policy and say something about what is being done by the Soviet Union. President Mengistu's position has been weakened. Is there evidence of pressure being exerted on President Mengistu by the Soviet Union? We have to work through our non-governmental organisations. We remain to be convinced that the Government will be able to respond in time and according to the scale of the need in that area.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Tim Sainsbury): The debate has highlighted the deep concern of all hon. Members about the threat of famine in Ethiopia. The contributions to the debate have been of a high quality, accompanied by a remarkable degree of personal knowledge of the area and its problems.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) asked a question that many people in the country are asking: why is it happening again? It was a powerful question. Subsequent contributors to the debate sought to provide an answer to it. However, as the hon. Gentleman recognises, it is not easy to find the right answer to that question. My right hon. Friend the Member for Tonbridge and Mailing (Sir J. Stanley) spoke movingly of his visit to


Mekele in 1984 when, as he so poignantly pointed out, the relief arrived too late. It was a stern reminder to us all of our duty to ensure that that does not happen again.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broxtowe (Mr. Lester), who also has great knowledg of the area, referred to the fact that the three protagonists in the major civil wars, who believe that relief is secondary to their military aims, make it more difficult to find a solution to the problem. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Galloway), who has direct personal knowledge of the problems in the area, made important points about the Tigrayan People's Liberation Front and its likely effect on the food and relief programmes. My hon. Friend the Member for Banbury (Mr. Baldry), who also knows the area, referred to his terrible memories of 1984. He said that it will be difficult to make the kind of headway that we need to make if that tragedy is not to be repeated. My hon. Friend the Member for Torridge and Devon, West (Miss Nicholson), who is a former director of fund raising for the Save the Children Fund, spoke with great knowledge of the valuable work being done by the voluntary organisations. I was glad that she referred to the Government's intelligent use of funds. She also drew attention to the great importance of teaching people how to make better use of their resources of land and food to solve the problems.
The House has shown a common determination that the threat of famine referred to in the motion and in the amendment must be averted. We must not allow a repeat of the tragic events of 1984. That concern and that determination are, I am sure, an accurate reflection of the way in which people all over Britain are already responding to appeals for assistance to the region. The Government welcome the fact that today's debate will have helped to focus public attention even more closely on the problem, as the hon. Member for Hillhead said.
I hope that this debate will also have shown clearly that the Government have already done and are continuing to do a great deal to alleviate suffering. We are determined to make sure that it does not get worse. The general public may understand this better than some Opposition Members. A humanitarian problem of this nature should not be addressed on purely party lines. A number of my right hon. and hon. Friends made that point strongly. I accept that all right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House are sincere in their concern, but I stress that the Government are also sincere.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: May I ask the Minister a very simple question? To his knowledge, is any REST transport available in the Sudan to carry famine relief food supplies to Ethiopia? Does the Minister know whether any trucks are available right now?

Mr. Sainsbury: As has been mentioned in the debate, there are a very large number of trucks in the region. The problem is not so much trucks as opening the corridors to the food convoys. That it the key issue.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: rose—

Mr. Sainsbury: I am sorry, but we have a very limited amount of time.

Mr. Campbell-Savours: Answer my question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Minister does not give way the hon. Gentleman must not persist.

Mr. Sainsbury: No one should be in any doubt about the scale of the problem. As hon. Members have pointed out, the risk of famine is compounded and complicated by a web of related factors. First, there is not one but two civil wars. In Eritrea, the conflict has been in progress for 27 years. In Tigray, a hard-line Marxist regime is opposed by rebels who believe that Albania is the ideal to which their citizens should aspire. Incessant fighting would challenge any Government's ability to run the country. Secondly, misguided economic policies, particularly in the agricultural sector, have reduced the country's ability to feed itself even in non-drought years.
There are, however, some signs of hope. Peace talks aimed at ending the civil wars are now taking place. We continue to urge all parties to keep the process going in a spirit of compromise and flexibility. We shall do all that we can, in association with our European Community partners and through direct and indirect contact with all the parties concerned, to give those talks the best chance of success. There are also signs that the Ethiopian Government have begun to moderate the worst aspects of their economic policies. That is a result of representations made to them by the donor community, including the EC and the World Bank.
The conflict obviously has a direct bearing on the success of the aid effort. Convoys must be able to get through. As hon. Members have pointed out, the logistical problems are enormous. The tonnages of food required and the distances over which they have to be moved are very great, particularly in Tigray. There is a shortage of transport and a fuel problem, particularly in Sudan, which means that it has to be imported at great expense and difficulty. The terrain is particularly problematical and there is a constant threat of bombing of the food corridors. Some food certainly can be moved through Sudan and into the areas of need. If free access across the lines cannot be agreed, it will be necessary to move as much as possible through that channel, but it certainly will not be possible to meet all the requirements.
That is why it remains vital that food corridors should be opened to allow relief supplies through the ports of Massawa and Assab, which are controlled by the Ethiopian Government. If confirmed, President Moi's announcement that President Mengistu has agreed to this is welcome. We can confirm that President Moi made the speech in the terms quoted, but we cannot confirm independently that President Mengistu has specifically agreed to the proposal. As I am sure that the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) will appreciate, the key to progress is not President Moi's announcing an agreement but the protagonists accepting and adhering to that agreement.
The recurrent droughts affecting the Horn of Africa are the prime cause of famine, and they are beyond anyone's control. The effects are worsened, notably in northern Ethiopia, by over-grazing, poor agricultural techniques and deforestation, to which the hon. Member for Swansea, East referred. All of this causes great environmental damage and weakens Ethopia's long-term capacity to feed itself. Those are problems which can be tackled in the longer term. We are helping to do that under our technical co-operation programme, as are the multilateral donors such as the European Community and the World Bank.
The hon. Member for Falkirk, West (Mr. Canavan) referred to the need for developmental aid, and that is certainly recognised.
There are further important steps that the Government of Ethiopia can take. First, they can negotiate an end to the fighting—a number of hon. Members have recognised that as the prime task—thereby releasing the resources needed to tackle the problems of drought and under-development. Secondly, they can move further towards more liberal and market-oriented policies, particularly in the agricultural sector. This will do much to increase food production and enhance the security of food supplies, even in years of drought.
The scale and complexity of the problem are daunting. I hope that we would all accept that humanitarian issues such as this must be dealt with on a non-party basis. I echo my hon. Friends' call. It is not a matter of accepting the motion or the amendment—it would be much better if both were withdrawn and the House could agree with one united voice on the need for help. I assure the House that we work closely with all the NGOs, although I find that expression a little off-putting—I refer to the voluntary organisations and charities which do such excellent work. They have a tremendously important role to play in the relief operation and we shall stay in close touch with them. The voluntary agencies have long experience in ensuring that aid reaches those who need it on the ground as quickly and effectively as possible. That is why we channel the bulk of our emergency aid through them. The European Community has already committed significant contributions of emergency relief aid. We fully support that and our share of that assistance is substantial. The United Nations' role, too, is vital.
The United Nations emergency planning and preparedness group in Addis Ababa, which the United Kingdom helped to establish, co-ordinates the efforts of the various United Nations agencies, such as the World Food Programme, in coping with the emergency. It is a mechanism which has worked extremely effectively. We should very much like to see the International Committee of the Red Cross resuming a fully active humanitarian role in Ethiopia, as it did before April 1988, when it was asked to leave the country. I understand that negotiations are in hand and I wish them well.
I pay tribute again to the response of the British public. Their typical generosity was no doubt given an additional spur by the distressing and disturbing television reports transmitted last month. The Opposition have suggested that what we offered was a wholly inadequate response to a tragic situation, but my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made it clear that that is totally unjustified and wrong. We have been aware of the risk of famine in northern Ethiopia for some time, and we have been working to prevent it. This year we have given nearly £13·5 million to Ethiopia. We have given £67 million since 1987 and £150 million since 1984.

Question put, That the original words stand part of the Question:—

The House divided: Ayes 210, Noes 262.

Division No. 18]
[10 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Archer, Rt Hon Peter


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Armstrong, Hilary


Allen, Graham
Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy


Alton, David
Ashley, Rt Hon Jack


Anderson, Donald
Ashton, Joe





Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Gordon, Mildred


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Gould, Bryan


Barnes, Mrs Rosie (Greenwich)
Graham, Thomas


Barron, Kevin
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Battle, John
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Beckett, Margaret
Grocott, Bruce


Beith, A. J.
Hardy, Peter


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Harman, Ms Harriet


Bennett, A. F. (D'nt'n &amp; R'dish)
Haynes, Frank


Bermingham, Gerald
Henderson, Doug


Bidwell, Sydney
Hinchliffe, David


Blair, Tony
Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)


Blunkett, David
Home Robertson, John


Boateng, Paul
Hood, Jimmy


Boyes, Roland
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Bradley, Keith
Howells, Geraint


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Brown, Gordon (D'mline E)
Hoyle, Doug


Brown, Nicholas (Newcastle E)
Hughes, John (Coventry NE)


Brown, Ron (Edinburgh Leith)
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)
Hume, John


Buchan, Norman
Illsley, Eric


Buckley, George J.
Ingram, Adam


Caborn, Richard
Johnston, Sir Russell


Callaghan, Jim
Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S W)


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Campbell, Ron (Blyth Valley)
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Lambie, David


Canavan, Dennis
Lamond, James


Carlile, Alex (Mont'g)
Leadbitter, Ted


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Leighton, Ron


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Litherland, Robert


Clay, Bob
Livingstone, Ken


Clelland, David
Livsey, Richard


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cohen, Harry
Loyden, Eddie


Coleman, Donald
McAllion, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton N)
McCartney, Ian


Cook, Robin (Livingston)
Macdonald, Calum A.


Corbett, Robin
McFall, John


Corbyn, Jeremy
McGrady, Eddie


Cox, Tom
McKay, Allen (Barnsley West)


Crowther, Stan
McLeish, Henry


Cryer, Bob
McNamara, Kevin


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Madden, Max


Cunningham, Dr John
Mahon, Mrs Alice


Dalyell, Tarn
Mallon, Seamus


Darling, Alistair
Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Martlew, Eric


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Maxton, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham Hodge H'I)
Meacher, Michael


Dewar, Donald
Meale, Alan


Dixon, Don
Michael, Alun


Doran, Frank
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Douglas, Dick
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Duffy, A. E. P.
Moonie, Dr Lewis


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Morgan, Rhodri


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs Gwyneth
Morley, Elliot


Eadie, Alexander
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Ewing, Harry (Falkirk E)
Mowlam, Marjorie


Ewing, Mrs Margaret (Moray)
Mullin, Chris


Fatchett, Derek
Murphy, Paul


Faulds, Andrew
Nellist, Dave


Fearn, Ronald
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
O'Neill, Martin


Fields, Terry (L'pool B G'n)
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Fisher, Mark
Paisley, Rev Ian


Flannery, Martin
Patchett, Terry


Flynn, Paul
Pike, Peter L.


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Primarolo, Dawn


Foster, Derek
Quin, Ms Joyce


Fraser, John
Radice, Giles


Fyfe, Maria
Rees, Rt Hon Merlyn


Galloway, George
Reid, Dr John


Garrett, John (Norwich South)
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Rooker, Jeff


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)






Rowlands, Ted
Turner, Dennis


Ruddock, Joan
Vaz, Keith


Salmond, Alex
Wall, Pat


Sedgemore, Brian
Wallace, James


Sheerman, Barry
Walley, Joan


Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Shore, Rt Hon Peter
Wareing, Robert N.


Short, Clare
Watson, Mike (Glasgow, C)


Skinner, Dennis
Welsh, Andrew (Angus E)


Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)
Welsh, Michael (Doncaster N)


Smith, C. (Isl'ton &amp; F'bury)
Wigley, Dafydd


Smith, Rt Hon J. (Monk'ds E)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan


Smith, J. P. (Vale of Glam)
Williams, Alan W. (Carm'then)


Snape, Peter
Winnick, David


Soley, Clive
Wise, Mrs Audrey


Spearing, Nigel
Worthington, Tony


Steinberg, Gerry
Wray, Jimmy


Stott, Roger
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Straw, Jack



Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Taylor, Matthew (Truro)
Mr. Ken Eastham and


Thompson, Jack (Wansbeck)
Mr. Ray Powell.


NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Coombs, Simon (Swindon)


Amess, David
Cormack, Patrick


Amos, Alan
Couchman, James


Arbuthnot, James
Cran, James


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Davies, Q. (Stamf'd &amp; Spald'g)


Ashby, David
Davis, David (Boothferry)


Aspinwall, Jack
Day, Stephen


Atkins, Robert
Devlin, Tim


Atkinson, David
Dorrell, Stephen


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James


Baldry, Tony
Dover, Den


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Dunn, Bob


Bellingham, Henry
Durant, Tony


Bendall, Vivian
Dykes, Hugh


Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Fallon, Michael


Benyon, W.
Favell, Tony


Bevan, David Gilroy
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fishburn, John Dudley


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Dame Janet


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Boswell, Tim
Gill, Christopher


Bottomley, Peter
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)
Goodlad, Alastair


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Gorman, Mrs Teresa


Bowis, John
Gow, Ian


Boyson, Rt Hon Dr Sir Rhodes
Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Grist, Ian


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Grylls, Michael


Brazier, Julian
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hanley, Jeremy


Brown, Michael (Brigg &amp; Cl't's)
Hannam, John


Browne, John (Winchester)
Hargreaves, A. (B'ham H'll Gr')


Bruce, Ian (Dorset South)
Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)


Buck, Sir Antony
Harris, David


Budgen, Nicholas
Haselhurst, Alan


Burns, Simon
Hawkins, Christopher


Burt, Alistair
Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney


Butcher, John
Hayward, Robert


Butler, Chris
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Butterfill, John
Heddle, John


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hicks, Mrs Maureen (Wolv' NE)


Carrington, Matthew
Hicks, Robert (Cornwall SE)


Carttiss, Michael
Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.


Cash, William
Hind, Kenneth


Chope, Christopher
Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)


Churchill, Mr
Holt, Richard


Clark, Hon Alan (Plym'th S'n)
Hordern, Sir Peter


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Howarth, Alan (Strat'd-on-A)


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Rt Hon David (G'dford)


Colvin, Michael
Howell, Ralph (North Norfolk)





Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Porter, Barry (Wirral S)


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Porter, David (Waveney)


Hunter, Andrew
Portillo, Michael


Jack, Michael
Raison, Rt Hon Timothy


Janman, Tim
Redwood, John


Jessel, Toby
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Riddick, Graham


Jones, Robert B (Herts W)
Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Ridsdale, Sir Julian


Key, Robert
Rossi, Sir Hugh


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Rost, Peter


Kirkhope, Timothy
Rowe, Andrew


Knapman, Roger
Sainsbury, Hon Tim


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Knowles, Michael
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Knox, David
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Shelton, Sir William


Lawrence, Ivan
Shephard, Mrs G. (Norfolk SW)


Lee, John (Pendle)
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lester, Jim (Broxtowe)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lightbown, David
Speed, Keith


Lilley, Peter
Speller, Tony


Lloyd, Sir Ian (Havant)
Spicer, Sir Jim (Dorset W)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Lord, Michael
Squire, Robin


Lyell, Sir Nicholas
Stanbrook, Ivor


Macfarlane, Sir Neil
Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John


MacKay, Andrew (E Berkshire)
Steen, Anthony


Maclean, David
Stern, Michael


McLoughlin, Patrick
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Stewart, Andy (Sherwood)


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Madel, David
Sumberg, David


Malins, Humfrey
Summerson, Hugo


Mans, Keith
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Maples, John
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Marlow, Tony
Taylor, John M (Solihull)


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Temple-Morris, Peter


Maude, Hon Francis
Thompson, D. (Calder Valley)


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin
Thornton, Malcolm


Mellor, David
Thurnham, Peter


Meyer, Sir Anthony
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Miller, Sir Hal
Tredinnick, David


Mills, Iain
Trippier, David


Miscampbell, Norman
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Viggers, Peter


Mitchell, Sir David
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Moate, Roger
Waldegrave, Hon William


Monro, Sir Hector
Walden, George


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Walker, Bill (T'side North)


Moore, Rt Hon John
Waller, Gary


Morris, M (N'hampton S)
Ward, John


Morrison, Sir Charles
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Moss, Malcolm
Warren, Kenneth


Moynihan, Hon Colin
Watts, John


Mudd, David
Wells, Bowen


Neale, Gerrard
Wheeler, John


Nelson, Anthony
Whitney, Ray


Neubert, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Wiggin, Jerry


Nicholls, Patrick
Wilshire, David


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Winterton, Nicholas


Oppenheim, Phillip
Wolfson, Mark


Page, Richard
Wood, Timothy


Paice, James
Yeo, Tim


Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Patnick, Irvine



Patten, Rt Hon Chris (Bath)
Tellers for the Noes:


Patten, John (Oxford W)
Mr. Tom Sackville and


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mr. Sydney Chapman.

Question accordingly negatived.

Question, That the proposed words be there added, put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 30 (Questions on amendments), and agreed to.

MR. SPEAKER forthwith declared the main Question, as amended, to he agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House welcomes the speed and effectiveness with which Her Majesty's Government has responded to the threat of famine in Northern Ethiopia through the provision of food and emergency aid; and strongly endorses its diplomatic action aimed at persuading the parties to the civil wars in Ethiopia to seek a negotiated end to these conflicts and to facilitate the transport of food to those at risk of famine.

Education Reform (Northern Ireland)

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Dr. Brian Mawhinney): I beg to move,
That the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.
This draft order contains provisions which represent the most far-reaching changes to education law for almost half a century. Such changes are not undertaken lightly, and while the order reflects the Government's general education policy, it is a uniquely Northern Ireland piece of legislation.
The Government first published their proposals for reform in March 1988. In the 21 months since then, there have been two formal periods of consultation—first on the original discussion document, and secondly on the order itself. In practice, however, the consultative process has been continuous over the period. I said at its outset that the consultation would be genuine—that we would listen, discuss, and change where appropriate. That commitment has been honoured.

Mr. Paddy Ashdown: I am grateful to the Minister for allowing me to intervene so early in his speech. I congratulate him on the extent of the consultation, which has been real and widespread, in marked contrast to that which preceded the Education Reform Bill. Will he please tell us why, bearing in mind the importance of integrated education, he has not taken the trouble to meet the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education?

Dr. Mawhinney: I shall come to integrated education later in my speech. I have met many groups who have been involved with integrated education, and representatives of the schools and of the original two trust groups which were set up and are, as it were, the parents of those trust groups. The council is a much more recent group. It had an opportunity to make representations during the consultation period.
The order is the product of more than 5,000 written submissions, a large number of oral presentations and numerous discussions in other forums. It contains many changes from the proposals that were originally put forward and reflects as broad a consensus of support in Northern Ireland as we can achieve. I am grateful to all who recognise the importance of these reforms and who contributed of their knowledge and experience.
The Government have two main objectives in introducing this legislation. The first is to raise educational standards. Northern Ireland's young people are its greatest natural asset. Some of them achieve A-level and general certificate of secondary education examination results which are among the best in the United Kingdom, but at the other end of the academic spectrum, Northern Ireland has the highest proportion of pupils who leave school without any formal qualifications. We intend to preserve the best. We must secure improvement elsewhere.
Our second objective is to give parents more choice and involvement in the education of their children, on terms similar to those enjoyed by their counterparts in England and Wales. These twin objectives are reflected throughout this order.
Giving effect to the first objective, the order will set in place a common curriculum to be followed by all pupils from the age of five to 16. This will guarantee them a broad education based on common programmes of study and offer a common basis for assessing what progress they are making. The order lays down that the curriculum must include six areas of study within which pupils will follow a number of compulsory subjects. In addition, hon. Members will note the inclusion of six important educational themes which will be interwoven with, and taught as part of, the compulsory subjects. This framework will leave adequate room in the timetable for schools to add to the common curriculum those subjects most appropriate to the children in each class. In future, no child will be disadvantaged because his or her school does not offer an educationally balanced programme, or allows its pupils to opt out of essential areas of the curriculum.
The continuation of a selective system of secondary education will not present a barrier to achievement for those outside the grammar school sector. I firmly believe that, in the long run, secondary intermediate schools will benefit most from these proposals. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] All schools will have the same basis for their common curriculum and will, in addition, be able to develop their own particular strengths. These curriculum reforms will present secondary intermediate schools with an unprecedented opportunity to achieve increased status and, in the opinion of many of us, long-overdue public esteem.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I thank the Minister for giving way. Does he not recognise that many secondary intermediate schools already have enhanced status, which was granted to them by the education and library boards when they were allowed to change their names and call themselves high schools because of the distinctive courses and qualifications that youngsters attending them could achieve?

Dr. Mawhinney: Yes, I do, and I am confident that the reform proposals will enhance not only their status, but that of other secondary schools also.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I thank the Minister for giving way and apologise for intervening so early in his speech, but my point may clear up something. What exactly does he mean by "enhancing the status" of a school?

Dr. Mawhinney: As Northern Ireland Members know, I mean that there is widespread perception in Northern Ireland that, if at all possible, parents wish their children to go to grammar school. That is unfair to a significant number of secondary schools which deliver good education now and which, as a consequence of these proposals, will he enabled to deliver even better education—and will be seen by the community to be delivering better education—

Mr. Mallon: They will do the opposite.

Dr. Mawhinney: The people of Northern Ireland fiercely defend the many positive values in their society, the moral and social well-being of their children, and the preservation of their traditions. At the same time, they are


increasingly receptive to changes which will strengthen those values and play a part in bringing together the two communities.
Historically, Northern Ireland's children have been educated separately—by religious belief and tradition. An increasing number of parents are now demanding a third option. They want their children educated in the same classroom as children from the other side of the community, in a school which values both traditions. So this order contains new arrangements to help establish integrated schools. It also places a duty, for the first time, on the Department of Education for Northern Ireland to encourage and facilitate integrated education.
That does not mean that we intend to impose integrated education. We do not. It will happen only when and to the extent that parents themselves choose it. This order also enables Government to offer greater and earlier help to those seeking to establish new integrated schools. It signals our commitment to afford integrated education equal legitimacy alongside the controlled and voluntary sectors.

Mr. Eddie McCrady: I thank the Minister for giving way again. He is obviously going to use the term "integrated education" and "integrated schools" considerably during his speech, so for the benefit of the less well informed, such as myself, will he define what he means by those terms? Does he mean 50 per cent. Catholic plus 50 per cent. Protestant, or 80:20 or 10:90, or does he mean to include other religions as well?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, it does not mean 16 to 90. It means exactly what the order defines it to be. If the hon. Gentleman will be patient for a few minutes, I shall come to precisely the point he raises.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the Minister agree that, if we are to have three types of schools in Northern Ireland, they should all be treated equally? Is it not a fact that the order discriminates in favour of what the Minister calls integrated education and will mean the reduction of money to other schools which have previously achieved good work in the education system?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, I do not accept that. The capital arrangements in Northern Ireland to which the hon. Gentleman referred are exactly the same as those in England and Wales. Schools with no predominant majority of one particular group on the governing board, such as controlled schools, receive 100 per cent. capital funding. The schools in which one group retains an overall majority on the board of governors receive 85 per cent. That applies to Catholic maintained schools and voluntary grammar schools in Northern Ireland, some of which would be perceived as Protestant voluntary grammar schools. That is exactly the same as in England and Wales. The new proposed integrated schools will not have any group holding a majority on the board of governors. Therefore, they qualify, as does a controlled school, for 100 per cent. capital funding.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: Is the Minister prepared to give the precise percentage given to Catholic schools in England and Wales?

Dr. Mawhinney: Not without notice, but I can obtain the information for the hon. Gentleman. We are talking about Northern Ireland here.

Mr. McNamara: The Minister drew a comparison between Northern Ireland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Dr. Mawhinney: The arrangements between those schools which have no overall majority in control of the governing body and those which have are similar in Northern Ireland, England and Wales.

Mr. Beggs: There are more Members present tonight than there have been for some time. Will the Minister clear up the confusion over the extent of interest and enthusiasm in Northern Ireland for integrated education? Does he agree that in a recent survey carried out in the Coleraine area—a likely spot for developing integrated education—only 4 per cent. of parents interviewed considered that they might send their eldest child of pre-school age to an integrated school? That is a reflection of the level of interest across the Province. It will take much promotion by the Minister and financial inducements to develop integrated education.

Dr. Mawhinney: I have no idea whether those figures are well based. If I understand the implication of the hon. Member's question, he seems to hint that, because only 4 per cent. of people in Northern Ireland are interested in integrated education, the option should not be available to anybody because that is not a big enough percentage to satisfy the hon. Gentleman. The basis of the order is that an option will be made available of equal legitimacy to parents in Northern Ireland. It will be up to them to decide whether integration should take place, to what extent and how quickly.

Mr. David Alton: Does the Minister take comfort from the poll conducted by the Belfast Telegraph which shows that large numbers of people in Northern Ireland from both parts of the community want to see the integration option made available? In Lagan college, the numbers increased from 28 at its inception to nearly 600 pupils today. About 1,700 pupils are now in integrated education, and ultimately that must be a matter for parents.

Dr. Mawhinney: I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for his robust and long support for the concept of integrated education in Northern Ireland. I am grateful to him far drawing that reference to the attention of the House, thus saving me from having to do it. Perhaps I may now make some progress with my speech.

Mr. Mallon: rose—

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to make his own speech. I shall come back to integrated education.
I spoke about equal legitimacy and I stress the word "equal". Assistance to this group of schools does not imply a lessening of esteem for any other type of school; nor is integrated education a panacea for Northern Ireland's future. It is a legitimate education option and will be treated as such. Its legitimacy is no more and no less than other existing school options.
We recognise, however, that for the foreseeable future the majority of children in Northern Ireland will continue to be educated in schools which reflect the two different traditions. Given that reality, it is vital that our young people learn early that differences do not have to lead to division but can become the strength of a society. We


intend, therefore, that the school curriculum should play its part in fostering greater understanding, tolerance and respect across the community divide.
Therefore, for the first time, all children of all ages in all schools will study two new cross-curricular themes—education for mutual understanding, and cultural heritage. In addition, they will learn from a common history curriculum. Those changes are designed not to produce a homogenised Ulster man or woman, but to allow all in the community to live comfortably with cultural diversity and differences of aspiration, without threat to their own beliefs and identity.
Religious education occupies a central role in the curriculum. The order will strengthen the quality of religious education teaching by opening it to inspection by the Department's inspectorate, where a board of governors so wishes. The order also enables arrangements to be made for the provision of a core syllabus for religious education, and to that end constructive discussions have already taken place between the main churches.
For some, an important element of their identity is the Irish language. The Government recognise the important place that the language occupies in the educational and cultural life of a significant proportion of the population, as well as its place in the curriculum of many schools. The order therefore enables children to study Irish in addition to, or instead of, one of the major European Community languages which the school must also offer, in accordance with their parents' wishes.
If parents are to be constructively involved in their children's education, they need more and better information about how well their children are performing at school and how the schools themselves are performing. Schools, too, need to know how their pupils are progressing so that they can gear their teaching to each child's needs. Therefore, the order will set in place arrangements for the regular monitoring of pupil achievement. It is anticipated that the arrangements will follow broadly those being introduced in England and Wales. The aggregated assessment results of all the pupils in a school will form part of the annual report which each school will produce. The report will be available to parents and will contain a wide range of information about the school's activities and educational opportunities.
Among the most important provisions in the order are those in part IV, which relate to the admission of pupils to grant-aided schools. The Government consider it unacceptable that parents who wish to send their children to a particular school which has places available to accommodate them are prevented from doing so by artificial quotas. We intend that admissions will be constrained only by the physical capacity of the school. Parents will be able to choose the school they wish their children to attend, and the school will be obliged to admit them so long as it has places available.
Hon. Members will already be familiar with the concept of the local management of schools, which was introduced in the Education Reform Act 1988. Schools in my constituency have been managing their own budgets for several years, and I believe that none of them would wish to return to the old system. The new delegation

arrangements in part V of the order give those directly involved in the day-to-day operation of the school much greater financial control over their own priorities.
I now turn to Part VI of the order, the provisions of which are intended to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated education, mainly through the establishment of integrated schools. These provisions are introduced in direct response to public demand. The integrated education sector is as yet small, as the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) said. It comprises eight primary and two secondary schools, with some 1,600 pupils in all. But its growth has been rapid, and I pay warm tribute to the determination and perseverance of parents who have achieved this, at some personal sacrifice.
The Government's consultation paper included a proposal for a new category of schools to be known as grant-maintaned integrated schools. Responses were strongly supportive of the proposals and advocated that they should be extended, in particular, to provide the means for assisting new integrated schools with strong growth potential to get started. Both these proposals are reflected in the order. Grant-maintained integrated schools will be established by parents choosing, through secret ballots, to transfer a school from its existing structure to GMI status.
Throughout this part of the order there are key references to the need for the enrolment of an integrated school to include "reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils". A number of representations have been made that this provision should more strictly define integrated schools as having an equal balance in the numbers of pupils from each tradition.
We have carefully considered these representations. It is axiomatic that an integrated school should have a reasonably substantial representation of pupils from both backgrounds, and Governments will seek to ensure that this is always the case. However, we also want the aspirations of as many parents as possible for integrated schooling to be realised. The harsh reaity is that, in Northern Ireland, only a few schools could hope to achieve rough equality of balance and maintain it over a period of time. In our view, therefore, the end result of imposing such a rigid definition would be to reduce the number of eligible schools to unacceptably low levels.
Physical numbers are important, but they are not the sole determinant. Indeed, the key features which are likely to distinguish integrated schools from others will transcend considerations of mere arithmetic. The perception by parents of the character and ethos of an integrated school will depend on how the school operates day by day, and how effectively it respects and accommodates the cultural identities of all its pupils. The central responsibility for offering these guarantees to parents must lie with the managers and teaching staff of the school.

Mr. Henry Bellingham: Many Conservative Members support the order as a genuine attempt to break down sectarianism in Northern Ireland. However, I am worried about the governing bodies of the schools. Can my hon. Friend assure us that, although there is nothing in the order, there will be a balance between the two communities on the boards of governors? At present, nothing in the draft order requires those making nominations to have regard to the balance between the two communities.

Dr. Mawhinney: I thank my hon. Friend for his support for the general principle of integrated schools. Integrated schools are defined in the order in terms of their management, control and ethos. If they do not reflect some element of balanced representation of the two communities in all three of those attributes, they will not qualify under the terms set out in the order. I believe that that is the assurance that my hon. Friend seeks.

Mr. Ashdown: Like the hon. Member for Norfolk, North-West (Mr. Bellingham), I support the order. The Minister has provided what we seek. He talked about a rigid equation. However, no one has asked for a rigid formula. We want some statement that will allow for a balance; something that might be left for the courts to decide in the last analysis. By no means do we want a 50:50 analysis. He used the words "a rough balance". That is exactly one of the characteristics that we seek. If he can say that in his speech, why can he not enshrine it in the Bill?

Dr. Mawhinney: For the reasons which I have already given the House. I remind the right hon. Gentleman that I said that the Government recognise the importance of having significant numbers of pupils from both Protestant and Roman Catholic backgrounds if the ethos and character of the school is to be truly integrated. The Government will seek to achieve that when development proposals are submitted, subject to parents choosing to opt the school out of an existing structure into a grant-maintained integrated structure.

Mr. John David Taylor: If a school opted to become an integrated school and was accepted as such, but after a time failed to comply with the conditions and criteria which the Minister has just described, what kind of school would it be? Could it convert back to being some other form of school?

Dr. Mawhinney: The order covers entirely those circumstances. The board of governors ultimately has legal responsibility, and if it did not carry out that responsibility under the order, it would be replaced.
In Northern Ireland, unlike in England and Wales, it is proposed that a school can change its character at the time of acquiring grant-maintained status. There have been some representations that special arrangements, similar to those made in the Education Reform Act 1988, should be made in this order to protect the existing ethos of a school acquiring GMI status. However, they ignore the fundamental difference that, in Northern Ireland, a grant-maintained integrated school can only have an integrated ethos, and if a school was not formerly integrated there must of necessity be a change of ethos.
Let me also emphasise that schools do not just proceed automatically to integrated status following a ballot. Applications will be decided by the Department of Education having regard to all the circumstances of the case, including whether or not the school would be likely to be attended by reasonable numbers of both Protestant and Roman Catholic pupils. It will also be possible for a proposal to be approved subject to certain conditions.
Part VII of the order deals with further education. The further education sector in Northern Ireland plays an important role in the training of suitably qualified young people who have the knowledge and skills to support the economic life of the Province and create new areas of enterprise. Colleges will henceforth be given delegated

budgets which will enable them to meet more effectively the needs of the communities which they serve. They will also have new governing bodies in which local business and professional people will have a major involvement. Education and library boards will be given new specific responsibility for the strategic planning and the preparation of schemes for the overall further education provision in their areas.
The Catholic maintained school system is an important element in Northern Ireland's education system. This sector will benefit from the creation of the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools, described in part IX of the order. Both Government and the Roman Catholic Church authorities saw the need for a central body which would promote effective management in Catholic maintained schools, as well as advising the Department and the education and library boards on matters relating to these schools.
The Government welcome the creation of the council, not in any sense as a sixth area board, but as an important element in its objective to raise educational standards in all parts of the system. The statutory responsibility to provide curriculum support for all types of schools, including Catholic maintained schools, will fall to education and library boards.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is the Roman Catholic council a public body in the same sense as the education and library boards, and therefore subject to scrutiny by the ombudsman and the Fair Employment Commission?

Dr. Mawhinney: It is a public body, the members of which are appointed either through the Church or the Department of Education.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Will it be subject to the ombudsman?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Gentleman asks a good question. I shall double-check the answer.

Mr. Alton: I am grateful to the Minister, who has given way a number of times. On the issue of the reorganisation of schools within the Catholic sector, where there is some need to reorganise in any event, can he give an assurance that capital expenditure and grant rate will be reconsidered and that he will be open to representations on that issue and on that about governing bodies?

Dr. Mawhinney: We always take seriously a request from all sectors of the education community for capital expenditure. That is foremost in our thinking on reorganisation and rationalisation schemes when, each year, we decide how to disburse the capital programme. I hope that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman seeks.
I can tell the hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) that the council will be subject to the ombudsman procedure.

Rev. Ian Paisley: And to the Fair Employment Commission?

Dr. Mawhinney: Education does not come under the auspices of the agency, as the hon. Gentleman knows.
Another feature of this order that has been welcomed is that it clarifies the responsibilities and roles of each of the major partners in the education service in Northern Ireland. At a time of radical change, it is important that each partner in the education service knows its role and


that that role is valued. In particular, the education and library boards will have a central role in supporting the implementation of the reforms. They are to have major new statutory duties relating to curriculum support and in-service training. As major partners in the delivery of the education service, their views, as well as those of the CCMS and others, will continue to be sought and to influence education policy in the Province. It will be essential that the close partnership that already characterises our system is both maintained and strengthened to permit a smooth transition to the new arrangements. I am committed to ensuring that that will happen.
Teachers are at the forefront of these changes. One of the prime objectives of this partnership must be to support them, both professionally and with resources, as they discharge their duties. We all admire their professional commitment and are grateful to them for their dedication to the children we place in their charge every day. The Government have already shown that support for teachers by the decision to phase the proposed introduction of the programmes of study, so as not to overburden them or their schools.
I do not under-estimate the size of the challenge ahead as we implement these reforms. Meeting that challenge will, I believe, be exciting for everyone involved. It will also be costly. Major programmes of in-service training for teachers and boards of governors have been initiated. Large capital and equipment expenditure will be required. The Government are committed to providing the necessary resources and additional money has already been allocated. I intend to make a further announcement soon about the future levels of increased support that we shall be making available. That will demonstrate our commitment to the classroom.

Mr. Ian Gow: My hon. Friend has told the House that this is a measure of massive importance for the reform of education in the Province. Does he really believe that it is satisfactory for such a measure to come before Parliament that is unamendable and with no opportunity for any debate in Committee or on Report? Can my hon. Friend reassure my right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux) and me that this measure has the approval of the Government of the Irish Republic?

Dr. Mawhinney: I shall begin with the last point. This measure has not been presented to the Government of the Irish Republic, so I have no idea of what their views might be. It certainly does not come to this House with their approval, as it has never been presented to them for their approval. Indeed, it has not been presented to them for comment.
As to the hon. Gentleman's first point—

Mr. Gow: Honourable Friend.

Dr. Mawhinney: I beg my hon. Friend's pardon.
As my hon. Friend knows, his first point is a matter not for me, but for the Leader of the House. He also knows that Northern Ireland business on transferred matters is conducted through the Order in Council procedure in the House. It was at least partly with that in mind that we conducted an extensive consultation during 21 months in

Northern Ireland. Like my hon. Friend, I would wish to see the order in as good shape as possible and as sensitive to the needs of the children of Northern Ireland as it is possible under the circumstances to achieve. I hope that my hon. Friend will agree that we have sought to do that in presenting the order to the House.

Mr. William Ross: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: No. I have almost finished, and I have given way generously.
Hon. Members will recognise that the order is a major piece of legislation. To permit hon. Members as much time as possible to comment on its provisions, I do not intend to go into more detail. All legislation that comes before the House is important, but that which affects the education of our children, and thus the future quality of our society, is particularly important. The fact that the legislation concerns Northern Ireland, with its unique combination of social and economic problems, gives the order an added significance. It deserves our special attention. I am honoured to commend it to the House.

Mr. Roger Stott: The hon. Member for Eastbourne (Mr. Gow) took the words out of my mouth when he asked a simple but important question. I have been a parliamentarian for a considerable number of years, but I come to my present position as Opposition spokesman for Northern Ireland in some kind of virginal innocence.
We have before us a document which is hardly insubstantial. It is a weighty tome. It contains what the Minister has described as the most fundamental revolutionary changes in Northern Ireland's education system since the war. The sadness is that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) said last night, the matter would have been best dealt with in some devolved system of government where Northern Ireland representatives could at least have had the opportunity to debate and amend what is being proposed. In the absence of any devolved Northern Ireland Parliament, the order should at least have been debated in Committee so that we could have subjected it to the test of scrutiny and tabled amendments.
I should have preferred that to the further centralisation of power in the hands of the Secretary of State, whose presence we note. I am sure that he has read article 158 which further enhances his plenipotentiary powers in Northern Ireland. We should have preferred a different method of dealing with the order.
The Labour party welcomes some elements of the proposals. The Government's commitment to integrated education, the expansion of the curriculum to include courses designed to improve cross-cultural harmony and the abolition of the 11-plus examination in its present form are all supported by the Opposition.

Mr. Mallon: This debate is not about integrated education. It is about whether any sector should take financial preference over other sectors and be able to jump the capital expenditure queue. It is about the justice of the proposal.

Mr. Stott: If the hon. Gentleman will bear with me, I intend to deal with integrated education. If he catches your eye, Madam Deputy Speaker. I have no doubt that he will make a robust contribution to the debate.
We support certain elements in the order. However, it is an ill-informed and ill-conceived attack on Northern Ireland's education system. The Minister referred to financial support for the recommendations. Northern Ireland's education system is underfunded. Between 1979 and 1986, net expenditure on education, libraries and arts in Northern Ireland fell from 22·7 per cent. of the Northern Ireland budget to 20·9 per cent. If we use the GDP deflator to calculate the necessary level of spending, by 1986 education in the Province was underfunded by £35 million. Despite that evidence, the Government say that there have been no cuts in the education budget.
That claim was refuted by the Southern education and library board in a paper to the Secretary of State for Education on 29 April 1986. It said:
Since 1980/81 the annual increases in cash allocation to our board have been insufficient to keep pace with inflation.
Evidence of underfunding is backed up by articles in the Belfast Telegraph:
City schools face £700,000 in cutbacks
and
Government will force more closures
and
Good and bad news as board agree cuts
and
Education blueprint will need cash aid, warns head.
Without sufficient funding, Northern Ireland's schools will be unable to implement these expensive and far-reaching changes.

Rev. Ian Paisley: If there are to be across-the-board grants to schools, does the hon. Gentleman agree that we must first raise the level of all schools and then deal with the grant system?

Mr. Stott: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that underfunding is a major problem. If the proposals in the order are applied to schools that are already underfunded, they will increase their existing problems.
Who is to implement the changes? Who will be at the sharp end'? Those dedicated men and women in Northern Ireland who are responsible for teaching Northern Ireland's children will have to implement them. I am married to a teacher. I know from first-hand experience that the education system in England and Wales is experiencing great difficulties as a consequence of its reorganisation.

Mr. Ian McCartney: And Scotland.

Mr. Stott: Yes. My hon. Friend reminds me that Scotland is experiencing the same difficulties.
The core curriculum, testing and opting out have put great pressure on the education system in England, Wales and Scotland. The teaching profession in Northern Ireland has been steadily demoralised during the 10 years of Conservative Government. Morale is at an all-time low, with a constant flow of teachers quitting the education system. Recent research shows that in 1988 the number of teachers retiring prematurely through ill health increased by 42 per cent. and that during the past 10 years the ratio of teachers leaving the classroom before retirement age has gone up by a staggering 260 per cent.
David Allen, the leader of the Ulster Teachers Union, blamed those figures on teachers being "saturated with innovation". Stress consultant Dr. Sandra Mills warned that the Government's proposed reforms will serve only to increase teacher stress and further undermine the delivery and standards of education.
The result of the drain on teaching resources has been extra pressure on the remaining teachers, with substitute teachers now being so scarce that the absence of a single teacher may result in other classes being swollen by as many as 50 pupils. Only today I learned that the pupil-teacher ratio in Northern Ireland is the worst in the United Kingdom. The situation is compounded by the chronic lack of investment in the physical environment of schools in the Province. Because of the Education Reform Act, teachers in England and Wales have no direct salary negotiations. I understand that that is not the case in Northern Ireland.
This evening I received a factsheet from the Irish National Teachers' Organisation, stating:
The Education and Libraries (Northern Ireland) Order 1986 currently provides for the Department determine teachers' salaries. Practice to date has been for the Department to issue regulations which encompass the agreements reached by employers representatives (including the Department) and the recognised teachers' unions at negotiations. It is now being proposed that unidentified 'prescribed persons or bodies' may determine teachers' salaries. This new provision has been included in the Draft Order laid on 23 November 1989; it did not appear in any of the Consultative Documents nor in the Proposal for a Draft Order published in June 1989. There has been absolutely no consultation on this matter which is of central importance
to all teaching unions in Northern Ireland.
In spite of what the Minister said about the consultation period, he has failed to consult the teachers on the important issue of salaries.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the Minister should follow the precedent of his former colleague in the Northern Ireland Office who, in a similar situation when something was introduced into an order at the last minute, gave the House an undertaking that he would introduce amending legislation at the first opportunity?

Mr. Stott: Perhaps the Minister will note what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps we can persuade him during the debate. Having listened to the veracity of the arguments, he may very well take that point on board.
I am conscious of the time and I know that other hon. Members wish to speak so I shall try to get through my speech as quickly as I can.
Although official figures show, and the Minister has pointed out, that school leavers in Northern Ireland are more likely to leave school with A-levels—23·4 per cent. compared with 16 per cent. in England and Wales—the figures at the other end of the scale show that in Northern Ireland 21·9 per cent. of school leavers leave school with no GCE or CSE qualifications. The figure for Wales is 16 per cent. and in England it is only 9·6 per cent. Clearly, although the Northern Ireland education system is doing well for those geared towards A-levels and higher education, it is not performing effectively for the majority of schoolchildren not geared to those qualifications.
We believe that the current attainment problems are a direct result of the selective system of education in the Province which labels children as educational failures at an early age and seriously limits their future opportunities.


We are concerned at the omission from the order of a serious appreciation of the differences in educational qualifications of school leavers from the Catholic and Protestant backgrounds. The 1978–79 report of the Standing Advisory Commission on Human Rights highlighted the fact that, in 1985–86, 19 per cent. of leavers from Protestant schools were classified as having no qualifications, compared with 25 per cent. of leavers from Catholic schools, and that in 1987 it would have required a 10·4 per cent. increase in the number of Catholics leaving school with A-levels to match the Protestant position. That is unacceptable, and I do not believe that the order has addressed the problem.
We welcome the fact that the Government have substantially withdrawn their proposals to allow schools to opt out. They tried to justify opting out on the ground that it represented a democratisation of education provision. As the Minister with responsibility for education admitted, and I think that I quote him fairly, absolutely no one thought it a good idea. People appreciate that in reality opting out represents a Government attempt to centralise educational power by further removing local control and placing further additional powers in the hands of the Secretary of State.
Opting out in Northern Ireland now applies to only one class of school—integrated schools. Once a school is officially recognised as integrated, it becomes eligible for grant-maintained integrated status. Labour Members are strong supporters of the concept of integrated education and believe that it has a vital role to play in the development of a school system which does not promote and reflect sectarianism. There is growing support in the Province for integration. A poll conducted in April last year for the Fortnight magazine showed that 67 per cent. of people were in favour of the Government supporting integrated education. However, we are concerned that the Government's proposals for opting out may seriously discredit integration as an option throughout the education system in Northern Ireland.
I have recently received a letter from the Belfast Charitable Trust for Integrated Education, which says:
Several governors of integrated schools have in recent weeks declared their opposition to seeking GMIS status for their schools if the draft order is not suitably amended. We fear that if it is not we will soon have a small number of schools outside the legally defined integrated system, but accepting our definition of integration (i.e. schools where Protestant and Catholic children are educated together on a footing of equality), while the schools inside the legally defined integrated system will not be accepted by the integrated education movement as properly integrated.
Although we support the principle of integration and integrated schools, we believe that the Government are going about it in the wrong way.
On the subject of integration, the leader of the Social Democratic party asked a question—

Mr. Ashdown: Liberal party.

Mr. Stott: If the right hon. Gentleman cannot get the name right, he cannot expect me to get it right either. He asked a question concerning the consultation with the Northern Ireland Council for Integrated Education. I wonder why the Minister has not seen fit to talk to the council. It has made suggestions in its correspondence about "reasonable numbers" and "a reasonable balance".

The Minister tried to justify what he meant by that. As I understand it, these people want a ratio not of 50:50 but of something like 40:60.
There are other people in Northern Ireland who may not be religious, such as those from ethnic minorities or those families in which the parents come from different sides of the religious divide. There is nothing to prevent the Minister from accepting the definition that people want. I am sorry to labour the point, but here again is an issue that could have been taken up in Committee and on which we could have tested the Minister. We could have flushed out the reason why he has refused to accept that definition.
We also dispute the Government's claims that their proposals to allow open enrolment in schools will lead to greater choice for parents. Their stated intention is to force schools to enrol to the limits of their physical capacity according to the number of parents who want to send their children to a particular school. In practice, that represents a system of rationalisation because while some schools will expand, others will close. Grammar schools, as a result of their elitist reputation, are likely to benefit from the new system as parents will compete to send their children into what they perceive to be the best school. Aside from the adverse implications for non-grammar schools under this system, grammar schools will find themselves oversubscribed and will be forced to introduce some type of selection. That seems likely to be on academic ability and parental suitability. In short, open enrolment provides a backdoor method for preserving the 11-plus and the less popular schools will go into a vortex of decline.
A Northern Ireland head teacher recently summarised the situation in stronger language when he said:
We would prefer to have a marriage rather than a rape. We are afraid that the grammar schools will just take over and push many of the secondary schools to the wall.

Mr. William Ross: Has the hon. Gentleman noticed that, whenever the Minister was speaking on this matter, he said that schools could enrol up to their capacity, but that he did not define the capacity? Is the hon. Gentleman as well aware as the Minister that there are many schools in Northern Ireland with many temporary huts sitting in the school grounds? Are they included in the capacity or is it simply the permanent buildings that are being covered?

Mr. Stott: I am aware of that. We have serious doubts about the Minister's description of how open enrolment will work. Will it be carried out until schools are bursting at the seams? We believe that there should be some planning in education. In England and Wales, the local education authority, the local community and the local education committee have the responsibility.
One of the key Government proposals is for the establishment of formal tests at the ages of eight, 11, 14 and 16 to assess pupil performance. The system of testing that is proposed could lead to a lowering of standards, reinforce failure and demotivate many children. Assessment and testing in the widest sense are integral to the very process of teaching and learning. Some testing is beneficial both for individual pupils and their parents, and for those who are concerned with judging the effectiveness of schools. But the Government's proposals represent an over-reliance on inappropriate forms of testing which could result in paradoxical results and to a possibility of lowering rather than raising standards.
Experience in some American schools shows that testing can lead to teachers teaching to test and neglecting


both the high and low achievers. Rigid testing at an early age will have a demoralising effect on some children who perform poorly and will lead to their developing a feeling of inadequacy.
I believe that information on a child's performance at school should he gleaned through sensitive diagnostic testing which fully tests each child's strengths and weaknesses. We welcome the Government's decision not to use tests to construct league tables of pupil against pupil, of class against class and of school against school, but some of us are still not convinced that the testing data will not be used for such purposes.
The Labour party considers that the Government's proposals to establish a formal test at the age of 11 represent a back-door method of preserving the 11-plus examination. The move clearly reveals the Government's desire to resist the development of universal education and to reinforce and further develop selective education. That is also the view of all the people in the Northern Ireland trade unions to whom I have spoken over the past two weeks.
The Labour party has always believed that the framework for the curriculum should be clear and more explicit. Our 1987 manifesto contained a commitment to a "clear but flexible core curriculum agreed at a national level." We therefore welcome the broad concept of a Northern Ireland curriculum, but we have serious reservations about its detail. We are alarmed that the national curriculum does not apply to pupils in the private schools. The Government's plans are not about establishing a common curriculum for all pupils but about setting up a state syllabus that applies only to certain pupils. That is both politically dishonest and educationally divisive. We also feel that the Government's proposals are too rigid and too prescriptive. The likelihood in practice of time impositions for the compulsory contributory subjects will serve to squeeze out important subjects such as information technology, electronics, statistics, personal, social and career education and home economics. We believe that schools should be permitted great flexibility in the range of compulsory subjects offered and the teaching approach adopted.
The proposal to include education for mutual understanding as a cross-curricular theme deserves praise. We fully support the aim of EMU in educating children to understand the different traditions in Northern Ireland. We also support the Government's new position on the Irish language. Irish is a key strand of the Catholic tradition in Northern Ireland and is growing in popularity —it is second only to French, the most studied language in schools. It is being studied by more than 20,000 students. We believe that the Government have made the right decision in allowing schools the flexibility to include Irish in the framework of the curriculum.
We feel that the current method of educational funding may create problems for voluntary schools in the provision of the full curriculum. Controlled schools, which tend to be Protestant schools, receive 100 per cent. funding from the Northern Ireland Office for capital projects, compared with only 85 per cent. that the voluntary, largely Catholic, schools receive. It is often argued, for example, that the reason why proportionately more Protestants than Catholics study for A-level science is that controlled schools can more easily raise the funds needed for

expensive science blocks whereas Catholic schools have been faced with the problem of having to raise significant sums from donations.
The Labour party believes that the system of differential capital funding should be ended. That change would not only facilitate the more successful implementation of the curriculum but would play an important role in the achievement of greater equality in educational attainment between the two main sectors.
I have already explained that this substantial document deals with virtually all aspects of education in Northern Ireland. But it does not deal with one very important aspect of Northern Ireland education—pre-school education. Pre-school education in Northern Ireland is woefully inadequate. Day nurseries provide only 2·8 places per 1,000 children aged between one and four, against a United Kingdom average of 16·7 places. Only 208 places per 1,000 children aged between three and four exist in registered playgroups in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom the average is 322. Only 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children aged between three and four exist in registered playgroups in Northern Ireland. In the United Kingdom, the average is 322. Only 13 per cent. of Northern Ireland's children aged between three and four attend nursery classes, as against the United Kingdom average of 23 per cent., which is bad enough.
The Government have clearly failed in their duty to provide adequate child care provision in Northern Ireland. We consider the Government's failure to tackle the problems of pre-school education while introducing the most wide-ranging reforms of the education service in the Province since the war represents a shameful neglect that clearly illustrates a blinkered approach to education in Northern Ireland. We believe that nursery education should be provided for every three and four-year-old whose parents want it.
The Labour party believes that education is central to the quality of individual lives, to the establishment of moral values, to the functioning of society and to the general economic prosperity of the Province. We believe that the people of Northern Ireland should be entitled by right to the best education without regard to their family background, income, sex or religion.
The proposals outlined in the order represent a combination of dangerous, divisive and destructive measures which constitute a substantial threat to respected Northern Ireland educational values. We cannot amend the order. It will go forth and its provisions will be visited on the educational establishments of Northern Ireland. All I can say is that when the next Labour Government assume office in two years' time we shall return to the subject and involve everyone in Northern Ireland in its implementation and in meaningful consultation.

Mr. Roy Beggs: I should like to place on record at the beginning of my speech the continuing dissatisfaction of Ulster Unionists and other right hon. and hon. Members at the fact that we are forced to embark on yet another debate on an unamendable order which affects the education of children in Northern Ireland.
This is not the beginning of a personal attack on the Minister, but a further reminder to the Government that elected representatives from Northern Ireland agree that the use of the Order in Council procedure to deal with the


affairs of Northern Ireland is shameful, reflects badly on the mother of Parliaments and should be discontinued and replaced before the end of the Session with proper legislative procedures.
I recognise the efforts that the Minister made to consult and to obtain submissions and responses, but I must observe that although the Northern Ireland Office and the Government think that a considerable time was given for consultation, because the recent consultation period covered the holiday months of July and August, even with the extension granted by the Minister, the timing was not conducive to obtaining maximum participation of all interested parties and in-depth analysis of such complex and radical proposals.
The electorate in Northern Ireland, school governors and members of education and library boards are sceptical about the consultation process. If consultation is to be effective, and not just a cosmetic exercise, there must be seen to be positive responses to representations. Some of us had considerable difficulty persuading major interests to respond at all, and even then it was difficult to arrange suitable dates for discussion of the proposals. Consultation on education matters with people involved in schools is well nigh impossible in the holiday period and utterly impossible in the first month of a new school year.
I accept that the Minister responded positively when advised of the difficulties faced by those seriously wishing to examine the provisions in the order and extended the consultation period to 30 September, but concerns still remain, despite the ministerial statement of 10 August which emphasised that the proposals were designed to give more power and greater freedom of choice to parents and school governors. It is clear that many of the changes have been widely accepted and welcomed and it is recognised that education has always been a partnership between parents, teachers, boards and the Department.
Will whichever Minister replies to the debate tell the House whether part II, article 3, of the order has made provision for central control of education by the Department of Education, thereby reducing considerably the function of the education and library boards and other bodies in Northern Ireland? If the proposals were designed to give more power and greater freedom of choice, why has there been this centralising of the control of education within the Department? It is dangerous in a democratic society and especially dangerous in a divided society.
The Minister should tell the House whether article 3(a), which extends the Department's duty to promote the education of the people of Northern Ireland, thereby goes beyond the provisions of the Education Reform Act 1988, which appears to have no similar provision for education in England and Wales. Suspicion arises from perceived central control of education. People in both communities demand an assurance—the Unionist community demands that its children will not be subjected to indoctrination through a green-tinged curriculum and the Roman Catholic community demands assurances that there will be no orange indoctrination of its children.
Under article 4(i) of part III, the board of governors and the principals of every grant-aided school are charged with the responsibility of ensuring that the curriculum in the school satisfies the requirement of the article. Good Ulster schools have always provided a broad and balanced

curriculum which is child-centred and has sufficient flexibility and depth in the subjects studied to match the age, ability and aptitude of the pupils. Principals and teachers, as professionals, produced that balanced curriculum.
Does the Minister really believe that members of governing bodies desire responsibility for curriculum matters? Perhaps he will tell the House why the order has departed from the provision made for England and Wales under section 1 of the Education Reform Act whereby the Secretary of State, the local education authorities, the governing bodies and the head teachers have responsibility for delivering the curriculum. By omitting area boards and other bodies from article 4(1), the Minister has reduced the functions and responsibilities of the area boards. Will education and library boards be consulted on curriculum content, or will schools and boards be forced to accept packages produced by Ministers and hand-picked curriculum draftspersons?
If it is accepted that professional teachers and principals will be expected by most governing bodies to have a key role in curriculum matters in each school, why, under schedule 8(3), do the qualifying conditions for membership of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council not include any reference to knowledge and experience of education? Members only have to be persons appearing to the head of department to have knowledge or experience relevant to the council's functions.
It is strongly felt by some practising teachers that teachers should be members of each council. Will the Minister give an assurance that teachers will have such representation and, if possible, give further information about the proportion of teacher members, the areas of expertise and the means of selection that will be used to appoint teacher members to the two councils?
Curriculum responsibility is referred to in articles 4, 10 and 11. Article 11(3) states:
It shall be the duty of—
(a) the Department and the boards in relation to all grant-aided schools …
to exercise their functions with a view to ensuring that the Boards of Governors and principals of grant-aided schools are in a position to fulfil their duties".
These articles give area boards no direct authority in matters relating to curriculum, yet many matters of policy are concerned with curriculum issues. Has the Minister amended, or has he even the power to amend, the order to include a change of emphasis to reflect these area board functions?
Arising from the requirement that school curriculum policy should reflect the findings of inspections, will the Minister say whether all schools can expect to have more frequent general inspections and subject inspections than in the past? Will he explain why, under article 6(4), there will be no formal assessment within creative and expressive studies? Will not the decision lead to a loss of esteem by parents, pupils and employers and to a deterioration of provision for such study within schools? Will the Minister reconsider article 6(4) and remove this permanent exclusion from assessment to ensure that the career prospects of many talented young people in Northern Ireland are not adversely affected?
Articles 9 and 34 cover external qualifications. There is concern in schools to meet the needs of individual pupils. Article 9 provides that no course of study for school age


pupils leading to an external qualification shall be provided except when the Department approves the qualification and the syllabus. That requirement applies to courses offered to all pupils of school age in grant-aided schools and may, by order, be extended to include pupils above compulsory school age and students below 19 in full-time further education. Acknowledging that GCSEs will form the basis of assessment at 16, will the Minister ensure that alternatives to GCSEs which have relevance and currency in the sphere of further education and the world of work, and have met individual pupils' needs in the past, will still be available to post primary pupils?
Part IV deals with admissions to grant-aided schools. Will the Minister spell out honestly for parents that unless they make realistic choices when stating a preference for the post-primary school at which they wish their child to be educated, they and the child could be disappointed?
Does the Minister agree that, in reality, grammar school heads will select? Does he accept that open enrolment will lead to a demand for grammar school places to fill available accommodation and that only when oversubscription occurs will academic attainment or aptitude be used as criteria for admission to those grammar schools?
How does the Minister expect secondary or community schools to compete fairly for pupils? In the long term, removing the 27–73 per cent. split of intake between grammar and secondary schools could prove harmful to both types of school. Grammar schools which use open enrolment to accept pupils beyond those who are highly motivated academically will have difficulty with less able pupils, and many smaller secondary schools will be unable to provide the curriculum demanded in the order and will be forced to close or amalgamate.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I have an enormous admiration for grammar schools in Northern Ireland and I am amazed that Northern Ireland does so much better in A-level and 0-level attainment than England, Scotland or Wales. What do Ulster Unionists think about the abolition of the 11-plus in article 38(5), bearing in mind that that will not happen in England and Wales—thank goodness—and that grammar schools in Northern Ireland have a broad social base and get the best out of above-average pupils?

Mr. Beggs: I have no doubt that the grammar school system as established in Northern Ireland will remain. Even with the disappearance of the 11-plus selection procedure, the new attainment testing will provide a basis on which children will be enrolled in grammar schools. Our real concern is that to maintain numbers and to protect staff when there is falling enrolment, there may be a temptation for some heads of grammar schools to enrol pupils who will not benefit from a grammar school education.

Mr. Mallon: Surely the nub of the problem is that secondary schools are apeing grammar schools and not performing the role for which they were intended. Open enrolment and the proposed system of testing will encourage that trend to increase, with the result that we shall have even more of a two-tier system.

Mr. Beggs: I accept that some secondary schools ape grammar schools. In our better secondary schools, however, children have had an opportunity to realise their

potential with only a small group being encouraged to proceed to examinations which are on a par with the courses that are available at grammar schools. Reference has been made to the level of young people who leave school without qualifications, but we should be honest with ourselves and take into account the low grades that have been achieved by many school leavers in England and the way in which they were evaluated by employers.
It is impossible to provide opportunities that will ensure that all children will have the same level of achievement. We must accept that there are wide ranges of individual ability while affording the opportunity to each individual to realise his or her potential.
I am concerned that with the loss of the 27–73 per cent. intake split there will be damage done both to grammar schools and secondary schools. I fear that many smaller secondary schools will be forced to close. If that should happen, the Government's intention of improving education standards across the board could be destroyed.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that secondary schools have closed and have then reopened with a lower intake of pupils as integrated schools which receive the full grants? The Government had said that they could not support the schools as they were. That has happened in Belfast and elsewhere.

Mr. Beggs: It is difficult for many of us to accept that once enrolment falls in a secondary school, whether it is maintained or controlled, there is pressure for closure, it is difficult to understand how they can be reopened as integrated schools on the same site. Of course, much more money is available for the schools because integrated education is the flavour of the day and gets every encouragement and incentive. We do not object to that development, but people should realise that there has always been a degree of integration in education in Northern Ireland. We have never been given much credit for that. My right hon. Friend the Member for Lagan Valley (Mr. Molyneaux), the leader of our party, was educated at a Roman Catholic school. I am a member of the governing body of a voluntary grammar school which has a high percentage of Roman Catholic pupils. The matter has never come up because the religion of those pupils is nobody's business but their own.

Mr. Alton: Schools such as Sullivan Upper, which I visited a few weeks ago, bear out exactly what the hon. Gentleman says. Some schools have a mixture of pupils and are not designated as integrated schools and do an excellent job. I think that Hazelwood school was mentioned in the debate. Does he accept that that school, which has 209 pupils, has gone from strength to strength because it decided to become an integrated school and therefore became more popular?

Mr. Beggs: It has gone from strength to strength because there is a demand for that type of education. I am not aware of its impact on smaller maintained Roman Catholic post-primary schools or controlled post-primary schools in the area. It seems nonsense to encourage a new start at the expense of closing neighbouring schools. It would he much better to encourage co-operation and the sharing of expertise and so on.
So that others can check my comments about the demand for integrated education, I should like to put on record a reference in the second edition of an independent


education magazine for Northern Ireland called Education North. It is edited by the education staff of Queen's university and the University of Ulster. It says:
Indeed, only 4 per cent. of the sample visited were extremely likely to send their children to integrated schools.
I am not here to thwart the wishes of such parents because we all believe in parental choice. I want to sound a word of caution and ask for consideration to be given to the impact of Government policy. I urge people to look closely at what is happening to community schools and small secondary schools in the rural and border areas of our Province. I hope that the Minister will assure us that open enrolment will not be allowed to be the final straw that drives out Protestant families whose number is declining because of the Government's failure to provide proper security and defeat terrorism in those areas. Those small community and secondary schools need support and protection in areas where they have been subjected to sectarian terrorism.
I was disappointed to read in the Belfast Telegraph tonight that the Minister, who is encouraging and promoting integrated education—none of us wishes to block that development—is not permitting it to happen because of parental choice. He is doing so with the co-operation of teachers. The paper attributes to him a categorical statement that he would not give consideration to teachers, whether Roman Catholic or Protestant, who feel on the grounds of conscience that they could not move with their Roman Catholic school to integrated status or from their controlled school to integrated status. He said that he would not give consideration to teachers who wished to be transferred to another school or leave teaching altogether and seek compensation. He wanted to know what he would be compensating them for.
I hope that the Minister will rethink his position. It is important that teachers should feel free to go along with the proposals if they wish and not feel coerced into supporting Government policy.
As Ulster Unionists, we believe that the funding of all schools should be fair and equitable. We seek an assurance from the Minister that the state has equal regard for all children that there will not be priority or privileged status for integrated schools and that extra funds will not he directed towards currently fashionable schools.

Mr. Mallon: That is in the order.

Mr. Beggs: The Minister must tell us that he is prepared to treat all children in the Province equally.
We accept the right of parents to choose to send their children to grant-maintained integrated schools, but we want the Minister to justify why they cannot be maintained by education and library boards as is the case for Protestant and Roman Catholic schools and, indeed, schools in the controlled sector.
Does the Department have extra funding for the promotion of grant-maintained integrated schools?

Mr. Mallon: The order says so in article 64(2).

Mr. Beggs: There is a strong feeling that other schools have lost out so that integrated schools could be promoted.

Mr. Mallon: I do not want to delay the hon. Gentleman unduly, but it is stated clearly in articles 64(1), (2) and (3)

that it is Government policy to encourage and facilitate the development of integrated schools and to provide funding to do that.

Mr. Beggs: But is it extra money? I am anxious that there should be extra money and that the money is not taken from the overall money available to Northern Ireland.
What assurance can the Minister give that under local financial management school governors will not become the buffers between parents and the Department when spending cuts occur and the perception of responsibility for cuts in school budgets transfers from the Department to school governors?
The order establishes in legislation a council for Roman Catholic maintained schools. We as Ulster Unionists have not objected, but as the role and influence of the main Protestant churches has been steadily diminished in controlled schools, it is an appropriate time to invite the Minister to take steps to establish a similar council for the transferor representatives of the three main Protestant churches. It is important to demonstrate to Protestant communities that their church representatives enjoy recognition, status and esteem equal to that afforded to other interest groups in Northern Ireland.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that churches other than the Catholic church handed over complete control of their schools to the state, thereby unfortunately lessening their control over what was happening? Is he saying that state schools, which we always understood to be non-sectarian, are Protestant schools?

Mr. Beggs: I accept the hon. Gentleman's helpful intervention. It is easy to be wise after the event. The assurances given when those transfers took place were not honoured. It is therefore appropriate to invite the Minister to establish a similar council for the transferor representatives of the main Protestant churches.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Is it not a fact that the then Stormont Government refused to increase the grant to the Protestant schools and said, "Hand the schools over to us and we will guarantee your rights as transferor"? Immediately that happened, the money increased. If the hon. Gentleman were as old as I am, he would remember the fight about 65 per cent. grants and the battle that took place between the Protestant Churches which were deceived by the Stormont Administration and the Roman Catholic Church.

Mr. Beggs: I will take the hon. Gentleman's comments as read and on the record.

Mr. Alton: I am sorry to intervene once again—

Mr. Beggs: I would appreciate it if the hon. Gentleman would let me finish my speech because others want to make their points.
There is so much in the order that one would like time to deal with. It would have made a proper Bill and we could have discussed the issues thoroughly in Committee. We must endeavour to prevent an abuse of power by the Department of Education and to ensure that public confidence is maintained. To that end, an independent ombudsman should be appointed in Northern Ireland to deal with specific education matters.
We hold our teachers in high esteem. We congratulate them on the achievements of primary guidelines, the 11 to


16 initiative and the introduction of GCSE. I am confident that, despite this enforced legislation, which deserves more thorough discussion, teachers in all sectors of education in Northern Ireland, including further education, will successfully cope with change, provided that the Government provide the necessary financial resources, adequate staffing levels and opportunities for in-service training, and take the necessary steps urgently to improve morale and halt the drift of highly qualified, experienced teachers who are leaving the education service because of the pressures under which they are expected to work in schools and colleges.

Rev. Ian Paisley: Northern Ireland is under a great shadow tonight. Two gallant members of the Army were murdered this afternoon, with another seriously injured. Those who did those acts evidently escaped over the border to the Irish Republic. We meet under that shadow. It runs deep into the hearts of the Ulster people. I want to express our sincerest sympathy to the families and the assurance of our prayers at Christmas time. They have received terrible tidings that will go down into the depths of their hearts.
Before I come to my main points, I wish to protest about the procedure tonight. We are at a great disadvantage. This is a massive Order in Council. Hit were a Bill, I do not know how long it would take to go through this House and its Committee stages, yet we have to discuss it in three hours. I do not blame the Minister—he gave way quite often—and I do not blame the Opposition spokesman, but at the end of the day, and because in courtesy we must allow time for the Front-Bench spokesmen to reply, we are left with only one and a half hours to debate the order. That makes it not a properly brought about law, but rule by decree. That is the measure of how the procedure has deteriorated.
The Minister and others have said that we might have had only an hour and a half in total. I know that, but must tell the Minister that three hours is just crumbs from the rich man's table. To be told that we are lucky to have three hours rather than an hour and a half is like the dog licking the sores after he gets the crumbs. That is how we feel about this procedure tonight. The Government should have provided at least a full day's debate on this Order in Council.
We are asked, "Why do not the leaders of the Unionist parties and the SDLP get together?" We did, and we made a request for further time to debate this matter. What happened? The Government said, "Oh no, you are not getting any further time." What is the use of the Government preaching that we should get together when, on the simple matter of giving Government time to deal with an order that the Minister admits is comprehensive and drastic and turns around education in Northern Ireland, we are denied further time and asked to consider it in these circumstances? The anomaly is that, if it were a Bill about education in England, Wales or Scotland, I could move an amendment; for Northern Ireland, however, I cannot move an amendment. All that we can do is to vote against the motion, and I shall exercise my right to vote against it. It is the only way to register my protest at the way that this matter has been arranged.
I know that the Minister will say that there was time to consult. Democracy is not built on consultation and the

Government deciding what the consensus is. The Government have the right to consult the people concerned, but the meaning of democracy is having a proper debate in the parliamentary forum, where the legislation can be examined line by line, arguments can be advanced, and the Minister must reply. The reply may not convince those who oppose him, but at least he has to attempt to justify the legislation.
We could not read this Order in Council in one and a half hours. We could not intelligently digest it in one and a half hours. Yet that is the impossible test for us. What an uproar there would be if this was offered as an Order in Council for England or Wales. What an uproar there would be if it were to be passed as we are being asked to pass this Order in Council. The Minister and the Secretary of State could have helped us a great deal if they had said, "Look, we are dealing with the whole of the education system of Northern Ireland, so let us have a full day's debate at least, and let it be open-ended so that all hon. Members can take part."
Many hon. Members from England, Wales and Scotland would have liked to take part in the debate. No doubt their contributions would have been valuable. But. out of respect to Northern Ireland Members, they are giving us what little time there is. That is not helpful, as Northern Ireland happens to be, and I trust will ever continue to be, a part of this United Kingdom.

Mr. Alton: I strongly agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is there not overwhelming evidence that throughout the House hon. Members want to see the establishment of a Northern Ireland Standing Committee so that issues such as this can be remitted to it for proper discussion? Does the hon. Gentleman also agree that if there is ever to be normalisation of politics in Northern Ireland, these bread-and-butter issues are exactly the sort of thing that should be analysed line by line in Committee before they come to the House to be pushed through in this undemocratic way?

Rev. Ian Paisley: That is a right which has nothing to do with the Anglo-Irish Agreement. As of right, Northern Ireland should be treated like any other part of the United Kingdom. A happier position would be a devolved Administration in Stormont. A happier position would he that those Northern Ireland Members who are affected by such legislation could debate it. That was done in consultation in the Stormont assembly, but we at least had the opportunity to examine Orders in Council line by line.
The time has come for a change. But I do not want a talking shop upstairs with no power. Legislation should be submitted as a Bill, so that amendments could be moved in a proper Committee session, if not on the Floor of the House, at least after a Second Reading on the Floor of the House. That would give Northern Ireland Members real power, and that is what we want.

Mr. John D. Taylor: Does the hon. Gentleman understand why the Government introduced the fair employment legislation in the form of a Bill, but introduced this much more important piece of legislation on education reform in the form of an order?

Rev. Paisley: I do not know the answer to that. The Government would probably argue that this is not primary legislation; that it alters certain laws that apply to


Northern Ireland. I do not know. But the Minister can argue his own case. I shall not be an apologist for the Government.
Mr. Lenihan made a long statement in The Irish Times in which he said that education was thoroughly discussed at the Anglo-Irish Conference, and matters relating to opposition from Nationalists to certain Government proposals were discussed and would be further discussed as they were important matters.
The Minister guarded himself carefully and gracefully. He said, "We did not submit this to the southern Government." No. But according to Mr. Lenihan, statements and matters in the order were discussed at an Anglo-Irish Conference. I suppose that the controversial matters were discussed and exchanges made. We will never know, because they are like masonic lodge meetings. They are on the square. We will never know exactly what takes place behind the doors. We shall have to leave the matter there.
However, I would take exception to the Minister pretending—I hope that I do not misjudge him; I do not want to do so—that Dublin had no influence on the matter. Dublin has an influence on all legislation that comes before the House for Northern Ireland through the Anglo-Irish Conference.
The order deals with the general duties of the Department, the curriculum, the admission of children to grant-aided schools, the financing of schools, integrated education and general provisions relating to education in the Province. Its scope is wide-ranging.
It is not right to ask hon. Members to say whether they are for or against integrated education. I sent my children to an integrated school. They sat side by side with Roman Catholics. Education in Northern Ireland should be non-sectarian. Northern Ireland's state schools are not Protestant schools. The education system should be non-denominational. Denominational ministers should have the right to instruct children in state schools according to the tenets of their faith.
That is impossible in Northern Ireland, for the simple reason that the Stormont Government built up the grant system for Roman Catholic schools, not for Protestant schools. Dr. William Corkey has written up the story of the battle for grants, and it is available in the Library.
When I was in Los Angeles, I met about 100 pressmen. I asked them, "How much money does the Government here give to Roman Catholic schools?- They said, "Not a penny." I asked, "Do they pay teachers' salaries?" They said, "Not a penny." Then I asked whether the Government paid their pensions. The reply was, "Not a penny", so I pointed out to them that they had said that, during 50 or 60 years of Stormont misrule, Roman Catholics had been very badly treated.
Roman Catholic Church schools were liberally treated by the Stormont Government. Their representatives should acknowledge that fact. We cannot now say to the Roman Catholic Church, "We're going to take away all your grants." It is impossible to create a non-sectarian, non-denominational system of education for Northern Ireland. It is developing into three systems.
The tragedy, however, is that the Government have not allowed every system to take its chance. They have made special provision for integrated schools. What about state

schools that have been integrated for a long time? What about schools that have always opened their doors to those on both sides of the ecumenical divide? One state school in Londonderry that the hon. Member for Londonderry, East (Mr. Ross) knows very well, in an area where there has been severe bombing, has been integrated almost from the beginning. Both Protestants and Catholics attend that school. However, it will not enjoy the same financial advantages as an integrated school will enjoy. It is not fair that those who have worked hard should be treated in this way.
Everybody knows about my opposition to the Roman Catholic Church, but it has worked hard and increased the number of Roman Catholic schools. Why should they be discriminated against? The hon. Member for Liverpool, Mossley Hill (Mr. Alton) may smile, but Roman Catholics have come to me and said, "We are being discriminated against." The bishops have threatened to take the Minister to court. The hon. Gentleman need not shake his head. Members of his own Church in Northern Ireland are not happy about the proposals in the order. I am not their spokesman, but that needs to be said.

Mr. Alton: An interesting coalition appears to be developing between the hon. Gentleman and Cardinal O'Fiaich. I do not support the idea of sectarian education. The hon. Gentleman should look at what happened in the diocese of Chelmsford last week, when an Anglican school and a Roman Catholic school amalgamated to become a Christian school. Christians decided to work together to provide non-sectarian education in which Christian values could be maintained. I hope he will consider that as a comparable model for Northern Ireland.

Rev. Paisley: In Northern Ireland we have three systems. Independent Christian schools are not included in any grant scheme. They get absolutely nothing from the Government.
I am asking that all the systems should stand equally in the market and be treated in the same way. But they are not being treated equally. I shall illustrate that point. Hazelwood school, which I am sure the hon. Member for Belfast, North (Mr. Walker) knows well, had to close down. It was immediately turned into an integrated school and money was poured into it. Although the attendance at that school has not improved, I understand that it was closed because of falling pupil attendance. That is not right, because the state sector suffered to the advantage of the integrated sector. I agree with the spokesman for the Ulster Unionist party, the hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs), that we should look at the results of integrated education.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill mentioned Lagan college. I am sure that he would hope that Lagan college would keep within the law. Is he aware that that building was built without planning permission and defied the planners? Is he aware that there had to be an enforcement order against it'? Is he aware that only influence in the Department prevented them from being taken to court while other people who put up a sign saying, "Belfast says No" were taken to court'? Those are the facts. The hon. Gentleman should go to Castlereagh council planners and find out exactly what happened in respect of Lagan college. Are those the ethics that they plan to teach their young people? Example is stronger than precept, so they should set the right example.
The hon. Member for Mossley Hill referred to a coalition. I am opposed to abortion, but that does not mean that I join the Roman Catholic lobby in my opposition to abortion, so let us not talk foolishly about coalitions, but see things in perspective.
I am worried about the emphasis that has been placed on education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage. I am sure that the Minister will understand how 1 feel. He told a certain gathering that part of the work of education for mutual understanding
would be to de-mythologise some beliefs among children.
Where do they get those beliefs? Are they the beliefs of their parents? It does not matter which side of the argument one supports. There are people who consider that some of my beliefs should be de-mythed, and equally I consider that some of their beliefs should be de-mythed, but who is to decide?
When the Minister says that education for mutual understanding is to de-myth some beliefs among children, I regard that as a very serious statement. I do not like the underhand way in which this matter is being handled. Teachers who were called to a conference in Enniskillen were told to tell no one its purpose. The first steps in this education for mutual understanding came from that conference. No teacher has a right to say to a child, "Do not tell your parent where you are going today."
I strongly protest. I should like the Minister to give me an unequivocal assurance that that will not be his Department's policy and that parents will have the right to say whether their child goes somewhere and say that he will not study a certain book. I should like the Minister to tell us all the beliefs that he thinks need to be de-mythed. He had better start working on that. Proceedings in the House begin every day with a prayer from the Prayer Book. Some things in it are anathema to the Roman Catholic Church. Roman Catholics would say that that Prayer Book should be de-mythed. Everyone has a right to his beliefs.
I do not believe that education for mutual understanding and cultural heritage will achieve anything. A faceless member of the educational establishment stood up and said, "The older generation of Ulster will never change, but we will change their offspring." That was a reference to the Anglo-Irish Agreement. I have news for the Minister. An attempt was made recently to involve schoolchildren in a massive rally, but it did not come off because the children did not come. We cannot change children.

Mr. Mallon: What about the demonstration on 15 November?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Those were grown-ups.

Mr. Ron Brown: The hon. Gentleman said that we cannot change children. If he is correct, that means that their view will not differ from his, and of course we respectfully listen to his view. An Edinburgh person called James Connolly went to Ireland and argued in a Marxist way for a Socialist Ireland. Surely his view should be understood in Ireland, North and South. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that that is anathema to the South, to the green Tories as well as to orange Tories? Does he agree that James Connolly's view is understandable and acceptable?

Rev. Ian Paisley: James Connolly was entitled to believe whatever he believed. I cut my political teeth in the Dock

ward. Lord Fitt was there as well. He was a Connolly man and preached Connolly's Marxism in the streets of the Dock ward. I have been well indoctrinated, and 1 know exactly what Connolly believed. It is not the duty of a teacher to de-myth the beliefs in which a child has been brought up. If we make schools a place where we change children's beliefs, we are on dangerous ground.
I do not know whether the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith (Mr. Brown) has a family. If he has, its members would probably have been brought up to be staunch Socialists. He would not want a Tory teacher to say, "I have come to de-myth your beliefs," and teach the child the wonders of capitalism and all the blessings that flow from it. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to denounce the teacher and all his work.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Following through his argument, does the hon. Gentleman accept that, apart from what teachers may be asked to do, it is wholly anathema for a Conservative Government who talk about parental choice to try to impose this indoctrination on our children?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I thoroughly agree with that comment. I should have thought that no Government in Westminster would take that line. This is a serious matter and it is causing great concern in Northern Ireland. I do not know what will be taught in the Roman Catholic schools. I should like to sit in on their education for mutual understanding and to see the textbooks that they will use. I should like to know what will happen. The Secretary of State made a dangerous speech when he said that the Government would "de-myth" the beliefs of children.

Mr. Harry Barnes: Might de-mything not depend on the approach that is adopted to try alter people's views in the long term? Will there be counter-indoctrination to try to change people's views or will there be questioning, which should be part of education? Will there be questioning of beliefs as well as everything else? In the questioning process, it is possible that different, freely chosen views will start to emerge in the children who are subject to that climate of investigation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: The hon. Gentleman refers to education, but education is a different matter altogether. De-mything beliefs will go to the heart of a child's beliefs. Where do children get their beliefs? They get them from their parents and from the Church in which they are brought up.

Mr. Ron Brown: And from prejudices.

Rev. Ian Paisley: They get them from their parents. It may be that there are prejudices. Some Tories would say that the hon. Gentleman is prejudiced. Where does it end? Let us get the matter straight. I do not know or care whether the House agrees with me: I do not believe that it is the duty of a teacher to de-myth belief. It is the duty of the teacher to say what happened when giving a history lesson and to paint Cromwell, warts and all. The teacher should tell it as it is. Hon. Members may not know that, unfortunately, Irish history was never taught in the schools of Northern Ireland. I never learned Irish history in my curriculum because the state schools never taught Irish history.

Mr. Martin Flannery: It is not taught over here either.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I had to read all about it when I was older. All I can say to the hon. Member for Derbyshire, North-East (Mr. Barnes)—and I know his view of the matter—is that a teacher has a responsibility, but it is wrong to put this extra load on the teachers of Northern Ireland. They cannot carry it, and it is not fair to them. The Government have no right to try blatantly to manipulate children who are sent to school. That view must be stated.

Mr. Ron Brown: The hon. Gentleman is not going to manipulate children in church?

Rev. Ian Paisley: Yes, of course I indoctrinate them in church by preaching, but they can say aye or no. The very genius of Protestantism is not authoritarianism, but the right of every man to choose for himself. I can preach to the hon. Member for Edinburgh, Leith the necessity for a new life and a new birth, but he may not accept that. He may say that he does not want anything to do with that new life or that new birth and that he will go his own way. He is entitled to do that. I am not going to get into a preaching session with the hon. Gentleman or we might have a penitent, and dear knows what would happen. He might be lost to the Socialist party eventually.
Education for mutual understanding causes serious doubts. The committee that drew up the curriculum is very unbalanced. I do not see one prominent member of the Protestant community, although I see names of people who are well known for their religious and political views. Why was a man who was well known for his Protestantism, as some of these people are well known for their Roman Catholicism, not chosen as a member of the committee to draw up the proper curriculum? Those are the questions that need to be asked, and I should like the Minister to tell us why that did not happen.
I must now deal with finance—

Mr. William Ross: Before the hon. Gentleman gets too far away from the whole question of religious instruction, let me ask him this. Did he note that the Minister said that the Department's inspectors would examine the quality of religious education, and would he, with his own religious qualifications, care to inquire what theological training the Department's inspectors have?

Rev. Ian Paisley: I do not know anything about the inspectors at the Northern Ireland Office; I do not know what their religion is or what their religious views are. I can only say that I fear that this concept will take us into deep waters, and I do not think that we should embark upon it. If people want to hear what others teach and believe, they have a perfect right to hear it directly from those people's representatives. But it is not right to tell teachers that it is part of their job to de-myth children's beliefs.
The financing of schools will play an important part in the programme. I fear for secondary schools. I fear that grammar schools will be put at a great advantage because they can take in all the pupils that they want to accept but can then exercise a veto. The headmaster can say. "You cannot send your child to this school because it will be detrimental to his educational interests." That is too strong a veto for any headmaster to have, and I do not think that it is right and proper that secondary schools should be put at that disadvantage. I worry about

secondary schools, especially in the areas that the hon. Member for Antrim, East mentioned, because they are in danger.
It has been argued that the financing of schools should be put on a par. But will we bring all the schools up to the same level before introducing level pegging? That is an important matter, and I ask the Minister to enlarge on that theme. Can we have the money to pay for the massive changes that are envisaged? One only gets what one pays for. The time has come for the Minister to tell us whether he is prepared to bring all the schools up to a certain level before he starts handing out the grant because at present some of the schools are disadvantaged.
The hon. Member for Londonderry, East made an important point when he asked about the schools whose grounds are filled with Portakabins. Will they be given proper capital grant so that they can build proper school rooms, or will they be left as they are? We need to know that, and I trust that the Minister will be able to help us.
We must also consider the whole concept of the curriculum. We know that the Government are postponing for a period their production of the new national curriculum, but the Minister should spell out clearly what the Government propose to do in Northern Ireland.
Article 158 of the draft order is viewed by many as a dictatorial and draconian measure. It seems from article 158 that, despite being obliged to consult, the Department of Education is given wide-ranging powers in regard to the education service in Northern Ireland. We are well used to diktat in Northern Ireland, and it seems that the order will perpetuate that feature of life in the Province.
I have a question about the new Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. The Minister said that education does not come under the Fair Employment Commission, but am I not right to think that boards and their employees come under its remit?

Dr. Mawhinney: The hon. Member is making a good point. Schedule 9 provides that staff employed by the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools are subject to the ombudsman and the fair employment legislation.

Rev. Ian Paisley: I am grateful to the Minister for that reply. I wanted to clarify that, although education is not covered, those who are employed by boards are.
I think that boards are having powers taken from them. I wonder whether the Minister is moving towards having one board for the whole of Northern Ireland. Having got one Roman Catholic board, is he trying to get one education board for the other schools? Perhaps he would care to tell us whether that is what he has in mind. There is no doubt that boards' powers are being depleted. Many people who want to serve on them, and who have done good service on them, will not want to serve because they will not have the powers they want to exercise to help forward education in Northern Ireland.
I regret that we cannot have a proper debate, move amendments and have a free-for-all. That is not possible, so my colleagues and I will vote against the order.

Mr. Seamus Mallon: I appreciate that many right hon. and hon. Members want to speak and I shall try to be brief, but we have had two long speeches from members of the Unionist community in the North of


Ireland, so if I require more time than I should like to take to describe a different view, I shall, with your permission, Mr. Deputy Speaker, take it.
I deeply regret that it is the present Minister with responsibility for education who is bringing this order forward. I have found him prepared to listen to people's views, to get out of the ivory tower and to talk to people. That has been noticeable. I say with the utmost sincerity that I cannot understand why he has not got the message from the entire community which we shall give him tonight. I and my party will vote against the order with the other political parties in the North of Ireland, knowing full well that our opposition is shared by the Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, all teacher unions, area boards and the Council for Integrated Education
I want to know who these people are who were able to have such influence on this Minister who, to his credit, travels the North of Ireland and listens to people. Those people will have told him that he is touching a raw nerve. For historical reasons, education is part of the folk memory in the North of Ireland. People of the same religious denominations as the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and me were once not allowed to be educated. We are non-conformists in our various ways. We could not have schools and be educated because we were considered dangerous. What did we do? We had something called Hedge schools. That is going back a bit, but it is relevant because it is in the memory of the people in the North of Ireland. That is why their nerves are touched by these proposals. That is why when the Minister started to bring forward these proposals, manyof us said to him, "Tread softly because you are not just treading on dreams; you are treading on the sacrifices that many families made to create and build schools and to send their children to them. You are treading on the deep pride of local communities at having their own spick and span schools and at having a good education system." The people of Ireland have always taken pride in education for the simple reason that in many ways it has been the only alternative to the dole queues in the present and to famine in the past. We asked him to tread softly—

Rev. Martin Smyth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way on that point which I should like to underscore. Does he equally acknowledge that it was out of our Presbyterian tradition that the Royal Belfast Academical Institution was founded? It was open to everybody and was to the educational benefit of the Minister.

Mr. Mallon: I confirm exactly what the hon. Gentleman has said and that the same position applied to many schools in the North of Ireland which did not draw attention to the fact that they were indulging in what is now called "integrated education". They did not have to do it, but they were making a contribution and the community knew it and responded.
Ironically in a place such as the North of Ireland, where the whole fabric of society is falling down around us, the Government have chosen to change the one thing that was succeeding—the education system. Furthermore, they are changing it fundamentally. It will not be easy because those traditions are in our folk memory and in people's historical dimensions. They are shared by the people of the North of Ireland. Given that the three Northern Ireland

parties in the House are asking the Government to stop, even at this late stage, will not the Minister recognise that fact and respond to it? Has he chosen to tread on all those susceptibilities to cater for the predilections of the few? Who are they? I do not know because we have not been told, but we are entitled to know.
I should like to make many points about the order, but time does not allow it and I shall make only four. First, should like to consider the one most important thing in education, which has not yet been mentioned tonight, and that is the child, the person who is being educated, and who I believe must have some rights in this. 1 am concerned about the rights of the child in relation to the new procedure of testing. I am not opposed to testing. Indeed, as a teacher for 20 years, I used it myself, but there is a difference between diagnostic testing which is helping the teacher and the school to try to gear the child's educational programme, and testing that puts one child against another, one school against another and one position against another. I believe that that is contrary to article 16 of the United Nations convention on the rights of the child, which surely must be noted when it states:
The education of a child shall be directed to (a) the promotion of the development of the child's personality, talents and mental and physical abilities to their fullest potential".
That principle should underlie everything in relation to testing.
However, I am afraid that we are getting a market mentality about this. I shall not go so far as to say that we are getting Conservative dogma in that market mentality, but I shall quote from the Ulster Teachers Union which best sums up what I want to say. I give the union credit for saying it much better than I could when it stated that this approach
reflects the economics of the market place which are not appropriate in the field of human endeavour".
That sums up the way many people feel about this testing. I repeat that I am not against testing—indeed, it is essential to the education process—but it must be done for the right reasons. It must be done so that we can learn something from it so that the child's education is improved. It must not be done for the reasons behind these proposals.
This testing is dangerous because it is aimed not at the pupil but at the teacher. Who better to quote as an authority for that than the right hon. Member for Chingford (Mr. Tebbit) who, during the debate on the Education Reform Act 1988, said that resistance to testing came not from pupils and parents, but from teachers. It was a fear of quality control. That is as though we were talking about something which was inhuman and wrapped up in a parcel—part of a market mentality which the Ulster Teachers Union was right to identify. George Orwell said something about this long before the right hon. Member for Chingford.
I shall make a point related to testing, about which I feel strongly, and which I tried to make in an earlier intervention. I have taught in more than one secondary school. The following problem has not been faced by the Government, the Department of Education, the church authorities of whichever church—whether Catholic or controlled: a vast number of young people in the North of Ireland are not receiving the vocational skills they need. We are not training them to be good bricklayers, joiners, cabinet makers and plumbers because the Department says that they must study this subjects, that subject and


other subjects. The principal says that they cannot do one subject because we have to compete because if we do not we shall go down the tubes and will not receive more pupils. The management says that the school will not get a good photograph in the local paper for prize-giving day and will not look like a grammar school. What does that matter if we send people out equipped to enter the world and bring their skills and talents to the rest of the community? That is what we should be doing.
The testing procedure is not for the child's benefit or as a diagnostic tool to help the child, but a crude market stick to create competitive forces in a field which, thankfully, has been protected from those forces for more than 40 years. The Minister's reasons are not good, fair, just or workable in the terms stated. I ask him to rethink them.
The other substantive issue to which I wish to draw attention is open enrolment. I shall not have time to expand in detail, but I wish to nail one great lie: open enrolment is not based on parental choice, but is the choice of headmasters of good schools in good areas. That is what open enrolment involves. Grammar schools will increase at the expense of secondary schools, especially those in isolated rural areas and deprived urban areas. Less able pupils will suffer because none of us has had the courage to say, "Let us train people for the lives that they will lead afterwards."
Schools will be categorised. There is a case for rationalisation, but it must be planned and not determined by market forces which are identified in this legislation. The essence of this unfairness is shown by the fact that we have created two types of school: one, called a grammar school, for the academically able pupil; the other, called a secondary school, for the less academically able. Then we say to the pupils that they will be given a common test and curriculum and be expected to compete. Wonder of wonders, the Department, Her Majesty's inspectors and the Ministers will all be surprised when they do not compete. The absolute injustice of this system is that we put two football teams on the pitch that simply cannot compete against each other.
I am proud to quote from the UTU document which states that the system
shows a cynical disregard for those smaller, less fortunate and less well-resourced schools which have done splendid work over the years, despite the system which is now going to militate against them even more harshly.
In reality, we are talking about school choice, not parental choice, that will be based on the place where the school is built and the type of pupil who goes towards it and not on the merits of the school. There is the inherent and human element of snobbery in the education system. It will not go away, but we do not have to nurture it in this way.
If we have secondary schools and grammar schools with the same curriculum, tests, assessments and scrutiny, let us give them all some chance of competing equally. Let us have co-ordination, not competition. There must be co-ordination of schools that are not equal initially. Without that, there is injustice.
This is not a debate about integrated education. It is a debate about a set of Government proposals that will give a new sector within the education system preferential treatment in terms of capital expenditure and in jumping the queue to obtain additional capital expenditure, and in

my book that is unjust. It is wrong if that advantage is given to a maintained system, a controlled system, an integrated system or any other system. That, however, is Government policy. It is the Government's policy to create that unfairness by providing moneys that other schools will not get. The opting-out provisions will place other schools at a tremendous disadvantage.
The hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott), in a fine speech, talked about lack of funding. Funding will be much more of a problem when the pool is much smaller. Surely that is unjust. I am not discussing integrated education, although I think that there is a place for it. When I spoke at the Northern Ireland Assembly as long ago as 1973, I said, "Let's try it. Let's see what is involved. Let's see what it can contribute. Let's have the courage not to turn it down." I emphasised, however, that it should not have unfair advantage. I said that it should not take money from other schools that might have been waiting 15 years for improvements or extensions. I stressed that such a system should not be placed ahead of other schools that had been waiting a long time for valuable moneys. My view was that we should not be unjust in our efforts to be fair, and that is one of the great contradictions in the Government's proposals.
I believe that parents have the right to seek integrated education and to have their children educated within such a system. That right must be defended by us all. They have no reason to tell us of their objectives, definitions or motivations, but we can guess at them. There are some who say that it will contribute to the alleviation of conflict and the promotion of reconciliation. That view deserves to be respected. It is a commitment which deserves to be respected. There are those who say that it is the answer to the divisions in our society. That, too, is a sincere view which must be respected. It is entirely wrong, but it must be respected and we must let people act upon it.
There are those who argue for integrated education for good, old-fashioned snobbish reasons that are always attached to education. Whatever their reasons, people do not have to explain them to us. If, however, a Department brings forward legislation that will be with us into the next century, it has a duty to present and explain its definitions. It must explain its objectives and their bases. Does this order do it? It does not. The Minister failed abysmally to answer the question in the intervention of the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown).
We have heard many quaint and whimsical approaches by the Minister and others. The Minister should be honest and tell us the basis of the analysis. Why do the Government think that somewhere down the line the result will be the one that they envisage? People in the Roman Catholic Church, the Church of Ireland, the Presbyterian Church, the SDLP, the DUP, the Ulster Unionists and the teachers' unions might agree with the Minister if only they were told the Government's view. There is a case for being honest in relation to that. There must be an overridingly worthy objective to justify the change and it must justify putting us all through the emotional wringer of this legislation.
The Government cannot get away with not answering questions that they do not like. They are dealing with our lives and, more important, the lives of our children and they have a duty to answer. We await those answers and we want no more whimsy or quaintness. The Government should be straight and deal with the matter. I could go on


at great length about that, but I should like to sum up in relation to integration, but not in relation to integrated schools.
It is unfair for schools to be put in a queue for scarce money. It is unfair to maintained schools which get 85 per cent. of their capital costs on foot of exercising parental choice. I am a parent and I contribute to that. It is okay for me to do so because I am exercising my parental choice. I have no quarrel with that, but when other people who exercise parental choice on foot of exactly the same position get a 100 per cent. grant I have reason to say that there is a difference which militates against me. There is not parity of treatment nor the type of approach that would add to the status of what will be. None of us knows what integrated education will become, but unfortunately the whole concept has started and has produced emotion and ambivalence all over the North of Ireland. That is bad.
I am being encouraged to finish and I shall do so. How can we justify allowing opting-out? If a group of parents decide to have an integrated school, how can the Government justify the taking of property on a different basis from that which applies in England and Wales? The trustees have some rights as well. The order says that the Government will consult the trustees in such circumstances. How nice of the Government. They will say, "That which you have owned for 200 years will be taken away from you, but don't worry because we will consult."

Mr. McGrady: The Government will pay in pennies.

Mr. Mallon: That is right and it goes back to the syndrome that I have spoken about. Section 89(2) of the Education Reform Act 1988 for England and Wales is most specific. It provides that the trustees of Catholic schools in England and Wales are assured that no proposals shall be published under the section for the purposes of making a significant change in the religious character of a school unless the trustees of the school have given their consent in writing to the change in question.
There is no doubt that where there is a change in a grant-maintained integrated school in Northern Ireland its ethos and its religious position will change as defined in the order. Where is the parity in that? When we ask about income support and family credit we are told that there must be parity in every region. No doubt we shall be given whimsy in relation to that, too. Some people will look for a lot more than whimsy. They will make sure that the proposals are subjected to the utmost rigour of examination. Whimsy will not be enough.
I said that I should finish at 5 minutes to I and I shall. I wish to leave the Minister with two quotations, again from a Northern Ireland source. They are both kind to the Minister about his efforts to create understanding within the community in the North of Ireland and about the whole concept of integrated education. They are from an editorial in the Irish News. I put them on record as the view of a paper which, by and large, reflects the Catholic Nationalist position and yet is kind to the Minister. The first is:
Whatever about the merits of integrated education, there can be no justification for diverting much-needed resources away from disadvantaged schools and pupils to underwrite the choice of a minority … the present Minister seems bent on re-opening old wounds by promoting legislation which flagrantly discriminates in favour of a sector with a specific religious ethos—that of 'integration'.

That must surely sum up the view of the Catholic Nationalist community and is reflected across the whole of the North of Ireland.
Aristotle once said, in what could be described as cynical terms, that education is the best provision for old age. The Government should not make education another item of confrontation in the North of Ireland where there is already far too much confrontation already.

Mr. Kevin McNamara: I regret that all the hon. Members who wished to speak in the debate have not been able to do so. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) on his first appearance at the Dispatch Box to speak about Northern Ireland, particularly as he came here from his sick bed to inflict his opinions on us. We welcome his opinions—we just hope not to get the flu.
The number of issues running through the debate shows the anxiety felt about the Government's proposals in the state, Catholic and integrated sectors of education. The Minister has gone out of his way to listen to people but on occasions it has seemed to be a dialogue of the deaf. He has heard and made changes where appropriate, but none of the changes has been appropriate in the view of any of the Northern Ireland Members who have spoken.
I welcome what the Minister sought to do in the education for mutual understanding and the cultural heritage proposals. I also welcome the provisions that he has made about teaching the Irish language and some of the other provisions that he has made.
The Minister must reply to several profound questions which cause anxiety. The first is about resources. My hon. Friend mentioned the reduction in resources for education. If the changes are to take place easily and properly in schools in Northern Ireland, adequate finance must be provided to back up the great demands that the Government are making.
The Minister made several vague statements at the beginning of his speech giving promises of jam tomorrow. Let us hope that there wil be some jam today. We want jam, not spread thinly, but put into the system in large quantities if the changes are to work. He must also look at the morale of teachers, who are at the front line of education changes. Proper recognition of their status in society must be accorded. Otherwise, the flood of teachers out of education will continue—as has happened in the United Kingdom generally—into other jobs where they receive better financial rewards and greater respect from the general public.
It is not only the financial aspects of the teachers' rewards that must be considered, but the status and administration of the new system. Teachers should have a proper stake in the overall direction of events and a place on organisations such as the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council and on the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools. It should be as of right for teachers to appoint teachers to represent the opinions of teachers on those bodies.
Hon. Members have said a great deal about their fears about the assessment of pupils and schools. There is a real fear that one school might be played against another, and that a school in a middle-class area might do better than one in a deprived area. We need to know more about the


assessment techniques that will be used. We must ensure that schools in deprived areas do not go further and further down in the people's estimation because they are not getting pupils because they are not getting support from the Department because they are not getting the necessary funds to carry out some of the more difficult tasks in some of the more difficult areas. Trouble in the North of Ireland is often in deprived areas where teachers and schools are held in low esteem. That must change.
My hon. Friend the Member for Newry and Armagh (Mr. Mallon) spoke about the problems of open enrolment, which will place in doubt the viability of schools in more remote or deprived areas and has serious implications for planning the allocation of resources and for the periodic necessity to rationalise the provision of education. Open enrolment is of great significance to the integrated schools movement.
Over the years, the Minister has constantly refused to give his definition of what would be reasonable balance and a balanced intake. He was asked again today by the right hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Ashdown) and others. The definition in the order is wide open to abuse. It is bound to be the subject of judicial comment and people are bound to seek a judicial review of it. The order provides no guarantee that a school which pretends to be integrated will actually be fully integrated. Supporters of integrated education are horrified at the way in which the order seriously undermines all their work in recent years.
The proponents of integrated education are joined by the Catholic bishops on this issue. They believe that the order permits people who would seek to discredit the integrated schools movement to set up schools, the real purpose of which is the opposite of promoting mutual understanding which the integrated schools movement seeks to promote.
In such circumstances, the Minister's response to the most reasonable suggestions put forward by the Northern Ireland Centre of Integrated Education is most disappointing. The centre suggested departmental monitoring of the status of schools and proposed balanced representation of both traditions on the boards of such schools. Both are sensible recommendations and we should like to hear the Minister say that they will be carried out in full in the regulations on integrated schools which are to be published.
Integrated education has raised a further issue which the Minister must take extremely seriously and which has been raised by the hon. Members for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) and by my hon. Friends the Members for Newry and Armagh and for Wigan. The Labour party is convinced that an essential element in ending the conflict in Northern Ireland is to ensure complete equality of treatment for the two major traditions. The order fails to do that.
Rightly, the order provides for 100 per cent. financing for integrated schools. We accept and welcome that. We urged that on the Minister when the discussions were first opened. We fully support that initiative. However, we fail to see why the order should institutionalise discrimination against the Catholic school system in such a way that the 85 per cent. limit on finance remains intact. That is a serious defect and the Government should rectify it as soon as possible. If they cannot do so immediately they

should set a target of time during which they will remedy that to make it 100 per cent. If the position deteriorates, the bishops will take the Ministry to court under the terms of the Northern Ireland Constitution Act 1973. That would be detrimental to the Government's credibility, to the credibility of the education system and to the commitment to establish equality between the two traditions, to which the Government have given their endorsement explicitly in the Anglo-Irish Agreement and on several occasions before and since the Act.
This is an important order, and hon. Members have said that it should have been discussed in a devolved assembly in Northern Ireland. It is an insult to the people of Northern Ireland. All their representatives, from every opinion in the Unionists, the SDLP and the Democratic Unionists, are opposed to the order, to its contents, to the manner in which it has been introduced and to the Government's failure to meet legitimate concerns. The degree of unity that the Government have managed to achieve among so many disparate Northern Ireland Members holds out great hope for the future of Northern Ireland. They all agree that they dislike the Tory Government's proposals and the English ideas being imposed on Irish people in the North of Ireland.
We shall accept the invitation of our hon. Friends in the SDLP and of other Northern Ireland Members to reject the order.

Dr. Mawhinney: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I welcome the hon. Member for Wigan (Mr. Stott) to our debates. I did not agree with everything that he said, although I admired the vigour with which he said it, especially as I am suffering as he is this evening.
The hon. Member for Antrim, North (Rev. Ian Paisley) and both Labour party spokesmen spoke of the advantage of devolved structures. The hon. Member for Antrim, North said that it would be a happier arrangement. I agree with him and I hope that we shall soon move to that happier arrangement. Nothing would give me greater pleasure than to welcome the hon. Gentleman or any other Northern Ireland Member as my successor as Minister with responsibility for education.
The question of resources was raised by both Opposition spokesmen. I am pleased that the hon. Member for Wigan implicitly said that he supported the reforms, but that they would need additional resources. We have already identified £30 million of additional resources especially for this proposal. He will have noted that the education budget for next year has been raised by 10·5 per cent. I hope and expect to be in a position before Christmas to announce how that money will be disbursed. There will be a substantial increase, in addition to the £30 million, set aside specifically to resource the introduction of education reform. I hope that he feels that I have fully met his point.

Mr. Alton: rose—

Dr. Mawhinney: I gave way a great deal in my opening speech, and I wish to deal with some of the points raised.
The hon. Member for Wigan also raised a question from the Irish National Teachers Organisation about regulations on rates of teachers' salaries. It is a serious point. Under the 1986 order, statutory responsibility for determining teachers' salaries rests with the Department.
That also includes such matters as promotion allowances and increments. Under the new arrangements, we believe that those matters should become the responsibility of the boards of governors, because they will be legally responsible for the schools. I assure the hon. Gentleman, INTO and other teacher unions in Northern Ireland that, although the order gives us power to make regulations to that effect, we shall not do so until there has been full consultation with the teacher unions. I hope that that satisfies the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East (Mr. Beggs) will not, I hope, think it too damaging if I say that he made a most thoughtful speech. He aired a number of genuine concerns of the people of Northern Ireland, and they are precisely the sort of concerns that we shall seek to address in implementing these reforms. I assure him that we will handle with sensitivity the very issues that he raised.
The hon. Gentleman said that good Ulster schools have always provided a broad and balanced curriculum, and he is right about the good Ulster schools. However, as a former teacher and an expert in education matters, he also knows that too many schools in Northern Ireland have not offered their pupils a broad and balanced curriculum.
For example, the hon. Gentleman knows that secondary schools in Northern Ireland have a higher proportion of girls stopping science at the end of the third form than anywhere else in the Kingdom, and that is not acceptable. Many schools are not doing any technology at all when we are trying to train them for employment of whatever sort in the world into which they will be moving. It is precisely because we are trying to achieve a broad, balanced and coherent curriculum from the age of five through to 16 that we are introducing the curriculum proposals.
The hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara) mentioned the membership of the Northern Ireland Curriculum Council and the Northern Ireland School Examinations and Assessment Council. We formed the judgment that teachers had to be members of those because they were at the chalk face. They were the people who were best equipped to be involved in those organisations. I am speaking from memory, but I believe that at least 50 per cent. of the membership of those two organisations are teachers, and that is what the hon. Gentleman wanted. They are there because they have experience and expertise in their own right and are recognised as having such by their peers, which is more important than being so recognised by someone such as me.
The hon. Member for Antrim, East said that removing the 27:73 arrangements would affect rationalisation. The hon. Member for Antrim, North pointed out that we have always had rationalisation in Northern Ireland. Schools have been closed over many years as pupil numbers have fallen and people have moved to different parts of the Province. Rationalisation will continue to take place as now, affected by parental choice, although perhaps more so in future.
I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that he was seeking on isolated rural schools. I have already entered into arrangements with the education and library boards and the Council for Catholic Maintained Schools in identifying a number of isolated rural schools which each of them believes should, if possible, have an assured future, subject to parental choice. We shall do that by ensuring

that the curriculum made available in those schools is sufficient for the children there. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.
I am not in the business of trying to indoctrinate young people, and neither are the Government, in terms of education for mutual understanding. That is precisely what it says—mutual understanding. I am not seeking to change people's beliefs. I am not seeking to infringe people's consciences. I am happy to give the hon. Member for Antrim, North that assurance. I am sure that he will join with every other hon. Member in affirming that it is important that our young people should have as balanced an understanding of the community in which they live as possible. That may expose them to the fact that there are beliefs other than those that they hold. But it is in no sense an attempt to cause them to change those beliefs, much less to force them to change those beliefs. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome that assurance.

Rev. Martin Smyth: Will the Minister give way?

Dr. Mawhinney: No, I have only two minutes left.
I want to assure the hon. Member for Newry arid Armagh (Mr. Mallon) that we look positively at assessment. We shall be following the line taken in England and Wales. We have said many times that we are not seeking to erect hurdles over which children will have to jump who will be disadvantaged if they cannot do so. Rather we are seeking to encourage them fully to achieve their potential, and I hope that at least on that point we are in agreement.
Enrolment will be a matter of choice for parents. Schools will not be in a position to make selection unless they are oversubscribed. That is a crucial point. Children will be able to go to schools chosen by their parents. [Interruption.] That has always been the case.
The hon. Member for Newry and Armagh also referred to integrated education. It is available because parents have said that they want that option to be open to them. The hon. Gentleman may not like that, he may say that that is whimsy, but it happens to be the answer to his question. It is not discriminatory. The capital provision for integrated schools will be the same as for controlled schools. If maintained schools wish to change the structure of their governing boards, they too will qualify for the 100 per cent. capital grant.
I commend the order. It will have the effect that the Government intend. It will raise education standards in our schools. It will increase parental choice and involvement in the education of their children. We owe it to the children of Northern Ireland. I have every confidence that the order will achieve those objectives.

It being three hours after the motion was entered upon, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to the Order [8 December].

The House divided: Ayes 88, Noes 18.

Division No. 19]
[1.15 am


AYES


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Bennett, Nicholas (Pembroke)


Alton, David
Bevan, David Gilroy


Amess, David
Boswell, Tim


Arbuthnot, James
Bottomley, Peter


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bowden, A (Brighton K'pto'n)


Arnold, Tom (Hazel Grove)
Bowis, John


Ashby, David
Brazier, Julian


Atkinson, David
Brooke, Rt Hon Peter


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Burns, Simon






Burt, Alistair
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Miller, Sir Hal


Carrington, Matthew
Mills, Iain


Chapman, Sydney
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Chope, Christopher
Morris, M (N'hampton S)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre F'rest)
Moss, Malcolm


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Moynihan, Hon Colin


Cran, James
Neubert, Michael


Currie, Mrs Edwina
Nicholls, Patrick


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)


Dorrell, Stephen
Paice, James


Dover, Den
Porter, David (Waveney)


Durant, Tony
Redwood, John


Fallon, Michael
Renton, Rt Hon Tim


Forman, Nigel
Sackville, Hon Tom


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Shaw, David (Dover)


Gill, Christopher
Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')


Goodlad, Alastair
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Hargreaves, Ken (Hyndburn)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Harris, David
Speed, Keith


Hind, Kenneth
Stern, Michael


Howarth, G. (Cannock &amp; B'wd)
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Hughes, Robert G. (Harrow W)
Summerson, Hugo


Hunt, Sir John (Ravensbourne)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Hunter, Andrew
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Jack, Michael
Thurnham, Peter


King, Roger (B'ham N'thfield)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Knapman, Roger
Viggers, Peter


Knight, Greg (Derby North)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Lawrence, Ivan
Wells, Bowen


Lightbown, David
Wheeler, John


Lord, Michael
Widdecombe, Ann


Maclean, David
Wood, Timothy


McLoughlin, Patrick



McNair-Wilson, Sir Michael
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mans, Keith
Mr. John M. Taylor and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Irvine Patnick.


NOES


Barnes, Harry (Derbyshire NE)
Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)


Beggs, Roy
Skinner, Dennis


Cryer, Bob
Smyth, Rev Martin (Belfast S)


Dixon, Don
Stott, Roger


Flannery, Martin
Taylor, Rt Hon J. D. (S'ford)


Forsythe, Clifford (Antrim S)
Walker, A. Cecil (Belfast N)


McNamara, Kevin
Wilson, Brian


Mallon, Seamus



Meale, Alan
Tellers for the Noes:


Molyneaux, Rt Hon James
Mr. William Ross and


Paisley, Rev Ian
Mr. Eddie McGrady.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the draft Education Reform (Northern Ireland) Order 1989, which was laid before this House on 23rd November, be approved.

STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS, &c.

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 101(5) (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

MEDICAL PROFESSION

That the draft Human Organ Transplants (Unrelated Persons) Regulations 1989, which were laid before this House on 15th November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Question agreed to.

County Down Fishermen

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Carlisle.]

Mr. John D. Taylor: Last week, when the decision was made to have an Adjournment debate on the fishing industry in County Down in Northern Ireland, I was overjoyed because there has been a problem for our fishermen in Portavogie, Kilkeel—I am glad to see the hon. Member for South Down (Mr. McGrady) here—and Ardglass. Little did I know that by this time tonight I would have the flu. My temperature is somewhat high, so the level of debate will be somewhat low. I want to make it clear that this is only an opening shot. The fishing industry has faced this problem for six or seven years and seems to be going through yet another stage in the ever-developing negotiations between the United Kingdom and the Isle of Man.
The fishing industry in Northern Ireland employs about 1,600 people in County Down—about half on the boats and the other half in processing. The largest section of the industry is involved in the fishing of nephrops, especially in Portavogie. Just as every fifth child born in the world is Chinese—so if one has five babies, it is likely that the fifth is Chinese—if one has a prawn cocktail in London, one in every four of the prawns will be from Northern Ireland. Northern Ireland produces 25 per cent. of United Kingdom prawns.
The nephrops and other fish that come into the County Down ports are caught either in the north Irish sea or in the Manx fisheries. Some 70 per cent. of the value of the catch in Portavogie, which has almost 70 boats, comes from waters three to 12 miles around the Isle of Man. That fishing limit is the subject of this debate. If Northern Irish fishermen lost their ability to fish there, dramatic damage would be caused to the economies of Kilkeel, Ardglass, Portavogie and the south and east coast of County Down, where there are no alternative sources of employment.
The matter first became controversial in 1983 when the Isle of Man Government appointed a commission to prepare a report. On page 10, the report recommended:
The future of a successful fishing industry in the Island will depend upon the Island Government having sole control of the fisheries within the territorial sea around the Island.
It meant, of course, within the 12-mile limit around the island. On page 12, the report made one of the most controversial of the many proposals. It said:
Manx vessels should receive priority in licence allocation.
Licence allocations would be made by the Isle of Man Government and they would discriminate in favour of Manx fishing boats and against those from Northern Ireland.
That prompted what must be a rare event in this House. Two Adjournment debates on the same subject took place in the same week. The first was on 29 November 1983 and the second was on 1 December 1983. In the first, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department stated:
Their immediate concern is to strengthen the measures of fish stock conservation which currently apply there.
That was the reason given by the Manx authorities, according to the Under-Secretary. All they were concerned about was to improve conservation. He went on to say that the Isle of Man Government hit


on the rawest of nerves
and that there would be
an element of discrimination to favour Manx fishing vessels."—[Official Report, 29 November 1983; Vol. 49, c. 861.]
In the subsequent Adjournment debate two days later, the former right hon. Member for South Down, Mr. Enoch Powell, asked
what consideration the Manx authorities have offered Her Majesty's Government in return for any agreement to extend the Manx fishery control limits in the way suggested?"— [Official Report, 1 December 1983; Vol. 49, c. 1099.]
He meant the extension from three to 12 miles. There was, of course, no reply to that question.
We begin to see that there was some form of cover-up. We find the Manx authorities saying that they want control of the fishing limits so that they can give priority to their fishing fleets against the interests of Northern Irish fishermen—and incidentally those of the fishermen from the west coast of England and Scotland. Alternatively, when challenged, they say that it is not to do that, but to improve conservation. We must ask tonight in what way the level of conservation that is applied to these waters by the United Kingdom authorities is inadequate. If it is not inadequate, there is no need for the question to arise as to whether it would be wise to transfer these matters to the Manx Government.
After that, there was a gap of about four years in which nothing happened, and the matter seemed to have come to a standstill. There was relief throughout Northern Ireland, in Scotland and in England until in 1987 the Government presented a Bill, now the Territorial Sea Act 1987. Section 4 provides
for the short title, commencement and extent of the Bill and includes provision authorising the making of Orders in Council extending the provisions of the Bill to the Channel Islands or the Isle of Man subject to any necessary exceptions, adaptations or modifications".
That means that the fishing limits of the Isle of Man can now be extended by an Order in Council. It is regrettable that yet again in a debate on a Northern Ireland matter we should be talking about Orders in Council. That Order in Council has never been presented to the House, but we now have reason to believe that behind our backs preparations are being made suddenly to present such an order to the House.
In the debate on 14 May 1987, the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs gave this guarantee to the House in his opening speech:
I assure the House that I remain determined that the arrangements for conservation and management of fisheries in those waters should not, in any way, be to the detriment of the fishermen in the United Kingdom, and I include Northern Ireland in that."—[Official Report, 14 May 1987; Vol. 133, c. 442.]
That was a very firm assurance, and we wish to hear it repeated tonight.
After that the subject once again became quiescent. Fishermen in Scotland and on the English and County Down coasts settled down. There was no concern until this year, when on 10 October, the Isle of Man Examiner, the local newspaper in Douglas, ran a story headed
Island finally gets 12-mile fish limit".
It went on to quote none other than the chief Minister, Mr. Miles Walker, who said that there would soon be an Order in Council. He said:
We have every reason to believe that the United Kingdom will make the Order in Council to extend the limit to 12 miles" before Christmas.

That prompted me to table a question to the MinisiTy of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food about the 12 mile limit around the Isle of Man. The reply came:
The 1987 Territorial Sea Act made provision for a 12-mile territorial sea for the Isle of Man. Fisheries and other Departments have been in discussion with the Isle of Man as to how this should be put into effect.
About 15 per cent. of Northern Ireland fishing industry's take is caught within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.
As I said, fishermen's organisations in Northern Ireland would strongly dispute that figure. The reply continued:
As well as ensuring the United Kingdom's responsibilities in relation to the implementation of the common fisheries policy were fully met, any arrangement made would clearly have to safeguard the interests and traditional rights of all fishermen within 12 miles of the Isle of Man."—[Official Report, 15 November 1989; Vol. 160, c. 331.]
That seemed somewhat reassuring—until a few days later, on 22 November 1989, the Isle of Man Government began sending out to fishermen a letter from their Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry. 1 have a copy, although I shall leave out the name of the fisherman who received it. It is headed:
Permit to Fish within Manx Territorial Waters.
It says that his permit
will no longer be in force after 31st December 1989. After this date, you will NOT be authorised to fish in the sea for sea fish within the territorial waters of the Isle of Man. The Department will consider duly completed applications for authorisation after this date.
The letter's publicity in the press in the Isle of Man created tremendous alarm among the fishing fleets, so I tabled a second parliamentary question to the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food, asking him
what fishing limits around the Isle of Man have been agreed for the period commencing 1 January 1990.
The reply was:
The present three mile limit around the Isle of Man will apply on 1 January 1990."—
no change—
Consideration, including in relation to fishing, on how the provisions for a 12 mile territorial sea around the Isle of man contained in the Territorial Sea Act 1987 might be implemented is in hand."—[Official Report, 4 December 1989; Vol. 163, c. 112.]
The subject is therefore being discussed quietly behind the scenes. Although we have an assurance that, in the interim., from 1 January 1990, there will still be a three-mile fishing limit around the Isle of Man, we now have confirmation black and white that shortly a 12-mile territorial sea around the Isle of Man will be agreed with the Manx authorities.
It is important that the fears of fishermen in the ports I have mentioned are allayed as quickly as possible. We must know something about the state of these talks. What progress has been made? We must know what the time scale is and have presented to fishermen a draft of the order for their consideration and discussion before it is presented to the House as an Order in Council and pushed through, as so many are, without our having a chance to amend it.
This is a matter of great importance to us, whether we be Catholic or Protestant, Unionist or Nationalist. It affects fishermen throughout County Down, in Cumbria and the south-west coast of Scotland. Our task is to restore their confidence and to give them a guarantee that they will see a document that will ensure their historic rights within the three to 12-mile limit before any order is presented to the House for debate.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. David Maclean): I sympathise and commiserate with the right hon. Member for Strangford (Mr. Taylor) on managing to conduct his Adjournment debate when he is suffering from the ghastly effects of Shaghai 'flu. Perhaps he will extend the same sympathy to me, as I feel that I am coming down with the same bug. I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will reciprocate my commiserations.
I shall try to make clear what is happening. The matter which the right hon. Gentleman has raised is of great concern. As my colleagues have said in several parliamentary answers recently, Parliament passed the Territorial Sea Act in 1987 which extended the breadth of territorial waters adjacent to the United Kingdom from three to 12 miles. The provision to do the same for the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands was not implemented immediately.
Implementation is not a simple matter because it may involve transferring jurisdiction over rights on the exploitation of the sea bed or of other marine resources and the ability to try criminal acts within 12 miles of the shore. Implementation has therefore been the subject of discussion between the Isle of Man, the Home Office and Government Departments with an interest in, for example, oil, coal and mineral extraction. We have also discussed fisheries. The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate that fisheries are a special issue. We are dealing basically with a hunting industry catching migrating natural resources. We are dealing with important traditional rights in fishing grounds from which some United Kingdom communities, including those in County Down, take some or all of their catches. We are dealing with obligations to Irish, French and Belgian fishermen who have traditionally fished these waters as well. We are also dealing with ensuring that any measures are compatible with the common fisheries policy —with all our Community obligations, the need to manage fisheries and the need to manage them in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Officials have therefore explored whether, if the territorial sea is extended to 12 miles around the Isle of Man, the essential features I have just outlined can be safeguarded. There has been no secrecy, no conspiracy and no cover-up. So far officials have been exploring the possibilities, and Ministers have yet to take decisions.
Let me also be clear that we are fully cognisant of the importance of the fishery to all our fishermen. In Northern Ireland, fisheries within 12 miles of the Isle of Man represent up to 15 per cent. of the value of landings in Northern Ireland. The important fisheries are nephrops worth £600,000; cod and whiting, each worth £360,000; and herring worth about £235,000. In any one trip, about half the 150 boats involved will go within 12 miles of the Isle of Man.
In Scotland, the catches of scallops and queens are worth just under £1·5 million, with a further £500,000 earned by herring, whiting and nephrops. This fishery is very important to about 45 boats, and to Kirkcudbright, where the fish and scallop processor is a major local employer.
For Wales, the dogfish catch of about £150,000 and scallops of more than £30,000 are important; and for fishermen landing in England, more than £300,000 worth

of fish are caught around the Isle of Man, with the autumn fishery for dogfish and the spring fishery for cod being particularly important.
Looking to the wider international scene, Belgian, Irish and French fishermen have rights to the demersal fisheries around the 12 miles. We are therefore conscious of the value of fishing to many communities whose fishermen go within 12 miles of the Isle of Man. I stress that we recognise the importance of ensuring that such fishing rights continue.
The sorts of measure which would be necessary would be ones which met our fundamental objectives. These are: first, traditional fishing rights of all United Kingdom fishermen would have to be safeguarded. We are only too conscious of the value of landings from catches around the Isle of Man, as I have already outlined to the House. Our second fundamental objective is that the agreed fishing rights of French, Belgian and Irish boats, encapsulated in the London convention of 1964, would also need to be safeguarded. Thirdly, any laws passed by the Isle of Man would have to be compatible with maintaining fishing rights, and compatible with EC and international law. I do not know how to stress that more strongly or more forcefully to the right hon. Gentleman, but it is a vital point. To meet such concerns, any fisheries law passed by the Isle of Man would have to be ratified by the United Kingdom Government. Thus, I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that we are not discussing a 12-mile exclusion zone for fishing.
So what would be the point of such a law? I shall digress to cover a constitutional point. As the House is probably aware, the Isle of Man is a dependency of the Crown and has its own legislature, judiciary and system of government. However, its legislation must receive Royal Assent from the Queen in Council. Its Tynwald is probably the oldest legislature in continuous session in the world. The United Kingdom Government are, nevertheless, responsible for defence and foreign affairs and have ultimate responsibility for the good government of the Isle of Man. The inclusion of fisheries in its extension of the territorial sea would enable the Isle of Man laws to mirror United Kingdom laws, as it has already done in respect of drug trafficking, serious fraud and other international matters. That would enable infringements of United Kingdom fisheries laws to be tried in Isle of Man courts, thus avoiding the need to have boats found offending necessarily having to be returned to the United Kingdom mainland to be tried for offences.

Mr. John D. Taylor: If such an event took place and a court hearing was held in which a United Kingdom skipper was involved, would he be restricted to employing an Isle of Man legal representative?

Mr. Maclean: That is not something that I can answer off the cuff. I suspect not, but I shall happily write back to ensure that the right hon. Gentleman has the exact legal opinion on that.
There is nothing sinister about this proposal. It has also been suggested that there will be new so-called conservation measures which will outlaw Northern Irish and other fishing boats. I stress as strongly as possible that this is not so. At present, there are no discussions about new conservation measures. The discussions are only about the feasibility of including fisheries in an extension of the territorial sea. If there were to be proposals on


conservation, they would, as my predecessors promised as far back as 1983, require discussions with all interested or potentially affected parties. Even if we found a way to include fisheries in the 12-mile extension, this position would not change. We would still require the safeguard of ratifying any Isle of Man law on conservation measures before it could have effect, and we would require such consultations.

Mr. Eddie McGrady: In view of the grave concern which has been so eloquently expressed, will the Minister state what time scale he envisages for the conclusion of the discussions and for a statutory reassurance to be given to the fishing people we represent?

Mr. Maclean: Perhaps I can deal with that point later. I do not have a particular time phase in mind. I do not think that negotiations must be concluded within a certain period. We want to ensure that things are absolutely right, no matter how long it takes.
The right hon. Member for Strangford quoted from an Isle of Man paper. It is purely coincidental that the discussions on a 12-mile extension were featured in the Isle of Man press some three months before three-year licences given by the Isle of Man to fishermen working within the existing three-mile territorial sea came up for renewal. These permits are renewed regularly. They relate only to the three-mile limit and do not extend to the 12-mile proposal. They are issued on a non-discriminatory basis without preference for Manx fishermen.
The United Kingdom and the Isle of Man already work closely together on fisheries management matters. The Irish sea herring fishery is already jointly managed by the United Kingdom Fisheries Departments and the Isle of Man. The Isle of Man participates in the management of the Irish sea fisheries as a member along with several representative fishing organisations on the area VII advisory committee. There is clearly already a good working relationship so that the many and complex issues of fisheries jurisdiction and management are well understood between us.
I give the assurance that the Government have no intention of abdicating their responsibilities for fishermen who have access rights in the area of possible extension. It is understood by the Isle of Man that territorial jurisdiction does not override legal and treaty obligations. The United Kingdom has responsibility for international relations off the Isle of Man and it has a duty to ensure that treaties and commitments are honoured. That is fully accepted by the Isle of Man. Traditional rights and Community and international obligations must he fully safeguarded. It is with these clear objectives in mind that Fisheries Ministers are examining the possibilities, and I can give the assurance that the House will be told as soon as we have reached our conclusions.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at five minutes to Two o'clock.